Bengaluru civic polls unlikely this year; govt to file affidavit in SC
Civic agency polls, overdue since Sept 2020, are now set to be pushed into 2026 owing to the complex exercise of dividing the city into five new municipal corporations and creating fresh ward boundaries.
The state govt, in its submission to the Supreme Court Monday, said it needs time till Nov 1 to complete delimitation and formation of new wards in accordance with the GBG Act. The court, which scheduled the next hearing for Aug 4, has directed the govt to file an affidavit confirming its timeline commitment by then.
You Can Also Check:
Bengaluru AQI
|
Weather in Bengaluru
|
Bank Holidays in Bengaluru
|
Public Holidays in Bengaluru
"Our govt is keen on ensuring civic polls at the earliest, with the formation of the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), which is for the greater good of the city," said deputy chief minister
DK Shivakumar
, who holds the Bengaluru development portfolio. "The decision on formation of GBA has been taken keeping in mind geographical, administrative and economic aspects. As far as civic elections are concerned, we will submit an affidavit in the Supreme Court very soon."
However, officials privately admit that even an early 2026 timeline is optimistic. The govt must finalise a reservation matrix for newly created wards after completing the delimitation of each of the five proposed corporations. Only then can the State Election Commission (SEC) begin work on electoral rolls.
"We have told the Supreme Court that we need three months to finalise electoral rolls," said GS Sangreshi, state election commissioner.
"We will begin the exercise soon after the govt completes the delimitation exercise for new wards. While the govt is committed to completing it by Nov, we expect it to file the affidavit accordingly. If it fails to keep this deadline, then we will think about filing a contempt suit against it in the apex court.
"
On July 18, the govt issued a draft notification to create five city corporations. Citizens have been invited to file objections or suggestions before Aug 18.
Officials said the urban development department will vet these responses till Sept 2, following which final notification will be issued. Each corporation will have 90 wards, with an average population of 30,000 per ward.
Despite the tight timelines, Congress MLA Rizwan Arshad, who headed a legislature committee on the GBG Bill, remains hopeful: "The govt has decided to work on a warfooting to complete all pending procedures before Nov. We will request the election commission to hold the polls by Dec. It is a herculean task, but I think it can be achieved."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
a minute ago
- Mint
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trumps birthright citizenship order
Boston-based federal appeals court skeptical of Trump's order One appeals court has already ruled order is unconstitutional U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Himachal may vanish into thin air if tourist inflows unchecked: SC
. New Delhi: Reminding Centre and the states that earning revenue should not be prioritised over the ecology and environment, Supreme Court has expressed deep concern over uncontrolled constructions and inflow of tourists in Himachal Pradesh, saying the day is not far when the Himalayan state may vanish from the map of the country if remedial action is not taken on time. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadev said that in recent years, the state witnessed many natural disasters, and it is humans, not nature, who are responsible for floods, continuous landsliding of mountains and soil, collapsing of houses and buildings, and road subsidence in which hundreds of people perished. These disasters are man-made and it is not right to blame nature for it, the court said. It appealed to Centre and the state government to intervene and stem the rot on an urgent basis. Revenue can't be earned at cost of environment: SC SC said, 'Nature has given abundant beauty to the state of HP... Taking advantage of this natural beauty, the government started constructing four-lane roads to promote it as a tourist destination. To build these roads, heavy machinery and explosives materials were used according to various reports to cut the mountains, due to which the natural balance of the place has started to deteriorate.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Knee Pain? Start Eating These Foods, and Feel Your Pain Go Away Click Here Undo 'We want to impress upon state government and Union of India that earning revenue is not everything. Revenue cannot be earned at the cost of the environment and ecology. If things proceed the way they are as on date, then the day is not far when the entire state of HP may vanish into thin air from the map...,' it said. 'The pace of infrastructure development in Himachal has intensified in recent years, driven by the twin goals of connectivity and tourism... In many cases, hill slopes are cut steeply, unscientifically, without adequate stabilisation measures, and natural watercourses are obstructed or diverted. This not only alters the local hydrology but also makes the terrain more vulnerable to landslides and flash floods. 'The 2023 and 2025 monsoon season, for example, saw widespread devastation in the Kullu, Mandi, Shimla and Chamba districts, partly attributed to such unscientific construction. Despite having been an environmentally rich state, its own people are today responsible for such blind pursuit of development, to their own detriment,' the court said.
