Declared Dead By Poll Body, Bihar Man Visits CEO's Office To Say He Is Alive
A resident of Bhojpur district in Bihar on Thursday called on the Chief Electoral Officer of the state to plead that he was alive.
Mintu Paswan, who was earlier this week produced before the Supreme Court earlier this week, was taken to the CEO's office by a delegation of CPI(ML) Liberation.
VIDEO | Patna: Mintu Kumar Paswan reaches Election Commission with documents, as he was declared dead in the voters' draft list.
He says, "I went to Supreme Court, because I was declared dead in the voters' list. The judge spoke in English, and I do not understand that… I have… pic.twitter.com/54rXwIhA88
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 14, 2025
"I don't know whether I was seen as an apparition by the officials. The fact remains that I have been distraught to learn that I have been declared dead in the special intensive revision (SIR)," Paswan told reporters here.
He alleged that no booth-level officer (BLO) had visited his home.
CPI(ML)-L secretary Kunal, who was present on the occasion, said, "Anomalies of this type are the very reason behind our general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya opposing SIR in the Supreme Court. Mintu is being asked to fill up Form 06, meant for registration of new voters, even though he has voted in the past".
The CEO has asked him to hand over the form to the BLO concerned, who already stands exposed for a goof-up, the Left leader asserted.
"He (the BLO) has confessed to his mistake and told the CEO that Mintu's name got struck off instead of another person," said Kunal.
If the BLO spoke the truth, the name of the dead person must be there on the draft electoral rolls, the CPI(ML)-L secretary said, adding that Mintu is being made to run from pillar to post because of this "comedy of errors".
Replying to a query from journalists, he said, "We have identified altogether 21 people, so far, who have been wrongfully declared dead, leading to deletion of their names. Of them, 10 were produced before the Supreme Court.
He added that the apex court was convinced of the mistake in only two instances - one was of Mintu and the other was that of a woman in Raghopur.
Incidentally, Raghopur is the assembly seat of the leader of the opposition Tejashwi Yadav, whose party RJD is an alliance partner of the Left.
"We do not know how effective the intervention by the Supreme Court is going to be. The Election Commission has been brazening it out, falsely claiming that political parties are not coming up with any claims or objections. We shall keep helping as many people as possible in getting their names included in the voters' list," Kunal said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
42 minutes ago
- India.com
No ceasefire, no deal... What happened between Trump and Putin in Alaska
No ceasefire, no deal... What happened between Trump and Putin in Alaska | 10 Key points Trump and Putin meet: The crucial meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska ended on Friday after lasting more than two and a half hours. The whole world was watching this high-profile summit as it could have an impact on the Ukraine war and the security situation in Europe. This was the first time the two leaders met face-to-face since 2019. Both leaders were accompanied by their high-level team, where banners of 'Pursuing Peace' were put up. However, the two leaders have not yet reached any agreement on a ceasefire. President Donald Trump admitted that some progress has been made but 'big issues' still remain. He said, 'Many points have been agreed upon but some points remain. One issue is the most important, but I will not tell it right now.' Russian President Vladimir Putin said he is 'sincerely interested' in ending the war, but first the 'main causes of the conflict' must be resolved. He warned Ukraine and Europe not to 'sabotage' the talks. Putin described his relationship with Trump as 'business-like' and reiterated that the war would not have started if Trump had remained president after 2020. At the end of the press conference, Putin invited Trump in English to visit Moscow. Trump said it was 'interesting' and 'possible', although he acknowledged that he could face criticism for this. Russian President Putin praised Trump's 'friendly' tone and said that the US and Russia should 'open a new page' and move towards cooperation. He described Trump as a leader who has a 'clear mind' and cares about the prosperity of his country. After the meeting, the two leaders issued joint statements but did not take questions from the press. Putin called it the 'beginning of an understanding', but he too did not talk about any agreements. After the meeting, Putin laid flowers at the graves of Soviet pilots in Alaska who were killed while flying aircraft under the training and lend-lease program during World War II. The talks, originally scheduled to be one-on-one, later became 3-on-3 sessions. Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff participated from the US side, while Sergei Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov participated from the Russian side. This was considered a more cautious move than the 2018 Helsinki meeting. He said that he would soon talk to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders. Trump also indicated that his next meeting with Putin could 'probably' take place in Moscow. Putin has also invited Trump to visit Russia . The location of the strategic base in Alaska and its proximity to Russia made this meeting even more symbolic. Ukraine, on the other hand, is still facing heavy bombing and a tough war on a 600-mile long front. Zelenskyy was not part of this meeting. He said in a video message, 'Everyone wants an honest end to the war. Ukraine is ready for this, but the war is dragging on because there is no indication from Moscow that it wants to end it.'
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Centre Warns Of "Constitutional Chaos" After Timeline Order For Governors
New Delhi: The government has warned against imposing a timeline on the President and Governors for clearing bills, differing with an earlier Supreme Court order. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had in April prescribed a three-month deadline for the President and one month for Governors to decide on the bills passed by the legislature. Such timelines would amount to an organ of the government usurping powers that are not vested in it, thereby upsetting the delicate separation of powers, the government said in a written submission to the top court, warning that it will lead to "constitutional chaos". "Even under its extraordinary powers vested in Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of the Constitution makers, provided there are no such procedural mandates in the constitutional text," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said in his submission. Though there may be "some limited problems in implementation" of the assent process, these cannot justify "reducing the higher office of the Governor to a subordinate one," said Mr Mehta. He argued that the offices of the Governor and President are "politically complete" and represent "higher ideals of democratic governance". Any alleged lapses should be redressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, not through "unwarranted judicial" interventions, he said. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor can give assent to the bills presented to him by the legislature, withhold or reserve it for the consideration of the President. He can also send it back to the House for reconsideration, but if passed again, the Governor shall not withhold assent. The Governor can also choose to reserve the bill for the President's consideration if it appears to be at odds with the Constitution, directive principles of state policy, or is of national importance. In its April 12 order in a case related to Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court had sought to regulate this process and ordered that the Constitutional heads follow a timeline to clear the pending bills. It ordered, "We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs... and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received." The judgment drew pushback, with President Droupadi Murmu raising queries to the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of such timelines. Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President posed 14 questions to the top court, seeking its opinion on the powers of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislatures. A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in July fixed a time schedule to hear the Presidential reference case and decide on the questions referred to it by the President. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, had asked the Centre and states to submit their written submissions by August 12. The five-judge bench headed by the CJI will begin hearing the case on August 19.
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
This Muslim Country plans to kill 3000000 dogs due to...; not Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Turkey, it is..
Several celebrities, animal lovers, animal rights activists, and political leaders have raised their voices in light of the Supreme Court's recent judgment to relocate the stray dogs to the shelters in Delhi-NCR. The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on pleas seeking a stay of its August 11 order to remove all stray dogs from the localities in the Delhi-NCR region and put them in shelter homes. A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria said it will pass an interim order on the August 11 order of a different bench. Earlier, the Supreme Court on August 11 took a stern view of the stray dog menace and ordered the Delhi-NCR to start removing stray dogs from all localities within eight weeks and house them in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic authorities. The discussion on stray dogs continues to spark debate in India. There have been different responses to this decision in public discourse, with some indicating that this is vital to create a hazardous situation for road safety. Meanwhile, others have indicated it is an infringement of animal rights. Meanwhile, reports suggest that another country is planning to slaughter almost 3 million stray dogs, drawing global outrage. The FIFA World Cup 2030 is scheduled to take place in Morocco, Spain, and Portugal. According to the media reports, about preparations for the event have shaken the world. Morocco reportedly aims to kill approximately 3 million stray dogs to make its cities look clean and nice. Animal rights groups, animal lovers, and social workers across the globe have condemned this news. When Morocco was chosen to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup, the government was serious about cleaning up its cities. As part of this plan, they intend to eliminate stray dogs. Media reports indicate that the dogs are ostensibly killed via poisoning, shooting, or sounded to death by electric shocks. Often, they are physically trapped in painful ways, transferred to a strap shelter home, and then killed more inhumanely than simply putting them down. In some areas, they have even been drowned or burned. When this news spread, animal welfare groups and animal rights activists worldwide protested vehemently. Jane Goodall, a well-known wildlife and animal conservationist on a global scale, wrote a letter to FIFA Secretary General Mattias Grafström with respect to the matter.
