Govt scared after Rahul Gandhi's revelations, EC must respond: Former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda
Bhupinder Singh Hooda
on Monday said the BJP govt is scared by the revelations of fake voters made by the leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi. He added that this fear is why the govt is trying to suppress peaceful protests by the opposition.
"The way police detained opposition leaders who marched to the
Election Commission
office on Monday clearly shows that the govt has abandoned accountability and has resorted to dictatorship. Congress strongly condemns this undemocratic action," Hooda stated.
Responding to questions from journalists in Delhi, Hooda said Rahul Gandhi revealed fake voters with proper evidence. "It was the responsibility of the Election Commission to answer it with facts, but the commission is busy threatening the complainant instead," he added.
Hooda said the Election Commission is completely working as a part of the BJP govt. "The commission is now issuing notices and asking Rahul Gandhi for answers, instead it should answer how so many fake votes were added to the voter list. This is a clear attempt to divert attention from the real issue," he said, adding that the commission should explain how the election results of the entire country, including Maharashtra and Haryana, came against the wishes of the people.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Dermatologist: Just Add 1 Drop Of This Household Item To Any Dark Spot And Wait 3 Minutes
skincaresecrets.us
Undo
He said it is clear from the results of Haryana that the public opinion was cheated here. "Rahul Gandhi has also mentioned Haryana in his disclosure. Everyone saw how after voting in Haryana, the Election Commission repeatedly changed the voter turnout figures for three consecutive days, whereas the final figures should have come by late evening on the day of voting," he stated.
"Not only this, the figures of the last five elections show that the govt in Haryana has always been formed by the party that won in the postal ballot, but this time the opposite happened. Congress got a huge majority in 74 seats in the postal ballot, but BJP won in the EVM counting. Therefore, Congress has also demanded that elections should be held on ballot paper. If elections can be held on ballot papers in countries like America and Germany, then why not in India?" he asked.
MSID:: 123238438 413 |
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
5 minutes ago
- Economic Times
When will voters blame Trump for this economy?
Donald Trump's economic policies face scrutiny as Americans grapple with financial challenges. Polls reveal concerns about inflation and the impact of Trump's economic agenda. Blue-collar voters express worries over tariffs. Republicans risk political setbacks in upcoming elections. The party's future hinges on voter sentiment and the strength of the Democratic alternative. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads President Donald Trump has claimed responsibility for the economy virtually every day since his inauguration. Late last week, the White House declared it a smashing success in a press release called '200 Days of Winning: President Trump is Keeping His Promises.' Yet many Americans are still struggling to get by amid mediocre economic growth and difficulty affording necessities, from groceries to prompts a key political question: When will voters hold Trump — now back on the job for more than six months — responsible for their financial plight? The answer could decide the battle for Congress in the 2026 midterm elections and determine the fight to succeed Trump in the White House in an early August YouGov poll for The Economist, voters' No. 1 issue was 'inflation/prices,' which at 21% beat the next most important concern, 'jobs/economy' by 7 percentage points. Trump's job approval rating in this survey was cratering at 41%. The president's handling of the economy rated roughly the same, at 40%. Those poor numbers are driven in part by dour reviews from independents and fit with recent data produced by Democratic a poll conducted in late July for the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, Trump's job approval rating clocked in higher than the YouGov survey, hitting 45%. But a 41% plurality of registered voters said the president's second term was unfolding as 'worse' than expected and only 42% approved of his signature economic package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4. Approval of the OBBBA among independents, according to this poll? A dismal 32%.Moreover, an early summer Democratic poll shows that 58% of voters view the economy as 'Trump's economy,' versus blaming former President Joe if the polls are accurate, Trump's blue-collar voters are running out of patience. 'In the spring, many [blue collar voters] were willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on his tariff plan — but by summer, many expressed serious concerns that tariffs are hurting their lives by making things more expensive,' reads a July 30 analysis of a focus group conducted by The Working Class Project, an initiative led by a Democratic super together, these findings put congressional Republicans in dire straits. And if such views proliferate among the electorate, it's not only Republicans on Capitol Hill who will feel the political pinch. Republicans vying to succeed Trump in 2028, especially Vice President JD Vance, could pay an extremely high of course, there are other surveys, and other ways of interpreting the begin with Trump's average job approval rating, calculated by RealClearPolitics at 45.7%. That's not half bad in our polarized times. The president's handling of the economy rated a similar 45% in CNBC's 'All America Economic Survey' fielded from July 3 through Aug. 3. Granted, that was a high-water mark in recent assessments of Trump's leadership on this the president's fate, and that of his party, will rest not only with how voters feel about the economy and the effectiveness of his governing agenda, but also on what the political alternative on the eve of President Barack Obama's reelection in 2012, the unemployment rate was hovering like a dark cloud over the economy at 7.9%, up one point from the previous month. That's a lot of Americans out of work — and nearly double the 4.1% rate just prior to Election Day 2024. But Republican Mitt Romney, a career businessman and corporate turnaround artist, did not ride those grim numbers into the White Heye, a Republican strategist in Washington active in campaigns during the Obama era, said there's a lesson there for Democrats assuming Trump and the GOP are inexorably doomed based on voters' economic anxiety. But so, too, must Republicans be careful not to assume the trade deals Trump has lately touted, and macro indicators showing a resilient if not entirely strong U.S. economy, will produce electoral victory.'It's a fluid thing,' Heye, an occasional Trump critic, told explained that Trump has been given some latitude (and time) by voters to improve the economy because they blamed Biden almost entirely for the inflation that spiked on his watch, even though higher prices were in part a reaction to the coronavirus pandemic, and resulting public policy decisions, that began during Trump's first term. 'That hangover that remains continues to give Trump the ability to blame things on Biden.'When might voters finally absolve Biden of responsibility and point fingers at Trump? 'Companies are absorbing costs thus far on tariffs. That's not going to last forever,' Heye another parallel with Obama might be 44th president pursued health care reform, convinced the eventual Affordable Care Act was good public policy and, as politicians are wont to say, therefore good politics. But in the short term, the law known as Obamacare was a political disaster for Democrats, costing the party 63 seats in the House seats and seven in the Senate. With Trump's firm belief in tariffs and insistence on building a protectionist moat around voters' access to foreign products, a 'shellacking' of his own can't be ruled out. But of course, it matters what kind of alternative Democrats are offering.
The Wire
8 minutes ago
- The Wire
Explained: The Delhi Governments Bill to Regulate Private School Fees Is No Victory for Parents
The Delhi Private Schools Fee Regulation Bill 2025 makes dissent impossible and de-risks the business of education. The Delhi government has just passed a new law to regulate private school fees . It is being called "historic" and a victory for parents. But reading the fine print of the law shows that one cannot accept it for what it says, but for what it is designed to do. This Bill is not a shield for parents but for school managements. It is a web of rules and omissions designed not to deliver justice, but to manage and exhaust dissent. The background Private education in Delhi isn't a simple service. It is a market defined by a power imbalance. Getting your child into a decent school is an ordeal. Once they are in, you are a captive consumer for the next 14 years. The schools themselves, many built on public land and legally mandated to be non-profits, operate as sophisticated businesses. The "non-profit" tag has become legal fiction, a convenient cloak for an industry whose real goal is profit generation. For years, the battle over fees has been fought in courtrooms and on the streets. The previous Aad Aadmi Party government's strategy was aggressive: forcing schools to open their books for a financial audit. It correctly identified the core of the issue: you cannot regulate fees without scrutinising accounts. But the effort was bogged down in politics and litigation. This new Bill by the BJP is the response. The question is: does it learn from that history and empower the parent or does it simply create a more elegant system to keep them in their place? The labyrinth The Bill creates a three-tiered system . On paper, it looks orderly. In practice, it is an architecture of disenfranchisement. Let's walk through it. First, the school level committee. The composition of the school-level committee is laid out in Section 4. The chairperson is from the school management. The secretary is the principal. On one side of the table, you have them, plus three teachers – their own employees, in a position of structural dependency. On the other side? Five parents, selected by a "draw of lots." The power in that room is deliberately rigged. The management are insiders with the data and authority. The parents are temporary outsiders, atomised by that "draw of lots" – a mechanism that ensures any skilled, troublesome parent can be conveniently removed the next year by the luck of the draw. Then, Section 5(4) states that any decision on fees requires "unanimous agreement." This gives the management the power to block any parent-led initiative. Although it can also technically allow parents to block a management-led initiative as well, power will skew towards the management for more reasons than one (more on this in the subsequent paragraphs). It's a committee designed not for consensus, but for guaranteed deadlock. Second, grievance. The management uses its veto. You, the parent, are outraged and want to appeal. Here, the Bill erects its most formidable barrier. Section 2(2) states that an individual parent has no right to appeal. None. To appeal, you must form an "aggrieved parents group" comprising "not less than 15%" of the school's total parent body. In a school of 3,000 students, this would mean amassing 450 parents. This is monumental barrier to justice, designed to be almost insurmountable. It transforms the right to justice from an individual right into a privilege reserved only for those with the extraordinary resources to build a mass movement. Third, the bar on justice. Section 17 of the Bill explicitly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts. This removes an independent, final avenue for redress for every parent limited by the "15%" stipulation. Remember, the foundational committee is controlled by the very management they seek to challenge. The ghosts in the machine What a law does not say is often more important than what it does. This Bill is defined by its strategic silences. Consider this central fact: An audit, the single most important word for financial transparency is completely absent from this entire Bill. Instead of demanding a forensic financial audit, Section 8 offers a vague 18 "factors" for setting fees, like "location," "infrastructure," and "education standard." These words are meaningless without an audit. A school can claim it needs a fee hike for "infrastructure" without ever having to prove it could not be paid for from its existing surplus funds. It shifts the debate from the verifiable mathematics of an audit to an endless argument. It replaces "Show us your books" with "Trust our story." Tucked away in Section 19 is another ghost. The Bill gives the government the power to frame "Rules" to implement the Act at a later date. This is a classic statecraft technique. Pass a palatable Bill in public, but control its real teeth and claws in the fine print of the Rules, which are drafted later, away from legislative scrutiny. The most critical procedures are all yet to be decided. The poison pills Finally, the Bill is seeded with legal traps that ensure the powerful stay powerful. First, the amnesty clause. A proviso in Section 5(1) is a masterpiece of quiet deception. It says the fee being charged as of April 1, 2025, is the "deemed" legal starting point. The implication is staggering. It effectively launders any illegal or unapproved fee hikes that schools pushed through before the law came into effect. It takes a potentially illegal figure and sanctifies it, rewarding the lawbreakers by making their illicit gains the legitimate baseline for all future calculations. Second, the spectacle of the circular penalty. Section 12 boasts of hefty fines for violations. It is meant to look tough, but is an illusion. A "non-profit" school has one main source of revenue: your fees. A fine imposed for exploiting parents will, by financial necessity, be recouped from the very same parents through future fees. The punishment is circular. The Bill studiously avoids the only real deterrents: personal financial liability for management officials, or a credible process for the government to take over the school. The private school fee regulation bill thus paves the way for a law that rigs the debate in a committee room, makes appealing a near-impossible task, removes the power of judicial review, strips out the essential tool of a financial audit, and forgives past illegalities and creates a fake punishment. This Bill does not help parents but de-risks the business of education. It provides stability and predictability not for the parent, but for the school industry, making it a safer, more attractive investment. This article went live on August twelfth, two thousand twenty five, at thirty-three minutes past four in the afternoon. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Aadhaar not proof of citizenship': Supreme Court backs EC as it hears Bihar SIR case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing petitions against the Election Commission's (EC) special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, with Justice Surya Kant stating that Aadhaar cannot be treated as proof of citizenship. The Supreme Court of India(HT Photo) 'Are petitioners saying that Aadhaar card is proof of citizenship? They are not saying that it is not a measure… the Aadhaar Act says so,' Justice Kant said. He added, 'See, the Election Commission is correct in saying that Aadhaar can't be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship; it has to be verified. See section 9 of the Aadhaar Act.' The bench said the first issue to be settled was whether the Election Commission had the authority to conduct the verification exercise. . "If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there can't be a problem," Justice Kant said. Appearing for RJD leader Manoj Jha, senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the EC's procedure would result in large-scale voter exclusion, particularly affecting those unable to submit the required forms. He alleged that even voters listed in the 2003 rolls were being asked to file fresh forms, with non-submission leading to deletion of names despite no change in their address. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed, 'If out of 7.9 crore voters, 7.24 crore voters responded, it demolishes the theory of one crore voters missing.' Calling it 'largely a case of trust deficit, nothing else', the court asked the EC to be ready with 'facts and figures' — including the number of voters before the exercise, number of dead voters earlier and now, and other details. Kapil Sibal flagged discrepancies, citing cases where voters declared dead were found alive, and living persons were listed as dead. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the EC, said some 'defects here and there' were inevitable in such an exercise, but errors could be corrected as it was only a draft roll. He said around 6.5 crore people did not have to submit documents as they or their parents were on the 2003 rolls. Advocate Vrinda Grover called the revision 'an unlawful exercise which lies within the bounds of parliament'. Activist Yogendra Yadav slammed the drive as 'the largest exercise of disenfranchisement in the history of the world', claiming '65 lakh names have been deleted. Never in the history of India has this happened.' He alleged, 'When I file an appeal for not including my name, it is decided after the list is frozen — and then, best of luck after five years. This is dreadful. We also have confirmation that more names of women have been deleted than men — 31 lakh women, 25 lakh men.' Yadav also questioned procedural changes, the 2003 precedent, and the assumption of inflated rolls, calling it 'an exercise in intensive deletion' and warning that 'vast exclusion has already begun'. The EC has maintained that the revision strengthens the purity of the electoral process by 'weeding out ineligible persons'. The final roll will be published on September 30.
