Bengal wants to be heard, state tells SC on SIR
Supreme Court
, which is hearing appeals against the special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar, that it "wants to be heard in the matter". The SC has allowed the state to file a formal application, a senior govt lawyer said.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the hearing would be held on Aug 12 and 13.
"The core argument against the Bihar SIR is its legal validity. If this falls through, nothing stops the EC from replicating this exercise in Bengal and other poll-bound states. Bengal govt will convey to the SC that it opposes this citizenship drive by EC to invalidate people who voted even in the 2024 Lok Sabha based on electoral rolls prepared by the poll panel," sources said.
You Can Also Check:
Kolkata AQI
|
Weather in Kolkata
|
Bank Holidays in Kolkata
|
Public Holidays in Kolkata
Trinamool Congress
MP Mahua Moitra has already filed a writ petition in SC, urging that EC's June 24 Bihar SIR order be scrapped for allegedly violating the Constitution and the Representation of People Act, 1950. Dubbing the order "extra-legal", Moitra has argued that the "order arbitrarily excludes commonly accepted identity documents such as Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of accepted documents, thereby putting a huge burden on the voters who are at a huge risk of getting disenfranchised".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Four-day Uttar Pradesh legislature session to run till August 14
The Monsoon Session of the Uttar Pradesh legislature will commence on Monday (August 11, 2025), with Assembly Speaker Satish Mahana chairing an all-party meeting on Sunday (August 10, 2025) to seek the cooperation of all political parties. Both Houses — the Vidhan Sabha and the Vidhan Parishad — will sit for four days, till August 14, with some key Bills expected to be tabled. 'We requested for the cooperation of leaders from all the parties during the Assembly session,' Mr. Mahana said. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath visited the Vidhan Sabha premises, where he inaugurated the renovated dome at the entrance of the Vidhan Bhavan, Assembly Room No. 15, and the VVIP dining hall. He also participated in the all-party meeting ahead of the session. The Samajwadi Party (SP), the principal Opposition, said it would raise issues such as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the context of the Bihar polls, the merger of government schools, law and order, and floods. 'We will raise key issues like the SIR, school merger which are fundamental to the survival of democracy and the future of our country,' SP spokesperson Ameeque Jamei said. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said any attempt to portray the SIR as politically motivated was 'misleading and baseless'. 'The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar is a routine, transparent, and constitutionally mandated exercise carried out under the direct supervision of the Election Commission of India. Its objective is simple - to ensure that every eligible voter's name is included, errors are corrected, and duplicate or ineligible entries are removed. This process strengthens democracy and empowers citizens, especially first-time voters. Any attempt to portray this as politically motivated is baseless and misleading,' said Pushkar Mishra, a senior BJP functionary based in Uttar Pradesh.
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872'
There were two recent judgments in terror cases–the 2006 Mumbai train blasts and the 2008 Malegaon blasts judgments. The high court verdict acquitting 12 people for the train blasts (7/11) called the torture meted out to them as 'barbaric' and 'inhuman'–the use of the judgment as a precedent in cases of MCOCA was stayed by the Supreme Court while not interfering with the high court's findings on the men's innocence. The trial court in the Malegaon case said there was a strong suspicion, but no legal proof against the seven accused it acquitted, citing reasons including the lack of procedure followed by the prosecution. Sadaf Modak speaks with advocates Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, who represented the accused in the train blasts case, about procedures and safeguards in terror probes. While drafting the Indian Evidence Act, James Fitzjames Stephen had decreed confessions to police officers as inadmissible. This holds equally true today and even the new criminal laws bar the use of confessions and witness statements made before police officers. The investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872, despite the upgrade in resources and technique. In this case, torture was the investigative tool of choice whether it be by obtaining false confessions, or coerced signatures on make-believe recovery /seizure panchnamas concocted in the police station. Superior officers endorsed the use of torture, and often threatened the prisoners with it if they did not cooperate or if they complained to the judges. Remand judges and later the trial judge pretended that there were no signs of torture even when it was staring them in the face. It appears that investigating officers resorting to such fabrication are enabled by the judicial latitude they are assured of receiving in terror cases. The failure therefore is not one of technique or manner of probe but a crisis of impunity. The burden lies not only on courts but also on the State to strictly monitor these investigations and pull up erring officers. This is a case where the High Court has found that the police have tortured the accused to procure confessions and destroyed evidence of CDR that would exonerate the accused. Instead of immediately instituting a wide-ranging review of this botched investigation, the state has denied its falsity. This attitude is a disservice to the victims who deserve an honest investigation, like the high court itself observed, that there is no greater betrayal of victims of terror crimes than fabricated investigations. This judgment should serve as a clarion call to the political leadership that short-cuts in terror investigations are unacceptable. At present, sanction and prior approval for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) prosecution are given by an officer of the DIG Rank. When a terror offence of this magnitude is committed, officers at the highest level supervise the investigation. Seeking sanction from the DIG or the DGP of the state, who has been actively monitoring the investigation, is like an appeal from Ceaser to Ceaser's wife. In the 7/11 case, the approval for Act was granted without looking at the chargesheets, which allows DCPs to record confessions. One of the reasons the high court rejected the confessions is because prior approval was given without application of mind. Even under UAPA, sanction is sought from an authority appointed by the Central or state government. These safeguards have been reduced to a nullity. The authority granting sanction must be independent and quasi-judicial and must be able to scrutinise the material independently. Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and now Section 230 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita penalises giving of false evidence and fabricating evidence with the intent to procure a conviction in a capital case. It is punishable with life imprisonment. It is time this law is implemented. Responsible police officers of the highest to the lowest rank must be prosecuted under the law. Police officers cannot be prosecuted for failing to collect sufficient evidence or if a prosecution fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a case such as the 7/11 blasts where officers have lied on oath about recording contemporaneous confessions, where there is stark evidence of brutal torture, where officers have deliberately destroyed the accused's CDR despite repeated applications by the defence for the CDR knowing that would exonerate the accused–such criminal action from the custodians of the law must be prosecuted under the law. If this is not done, there will be no acknowledgement by the State that they have failed the victims, failed society and undermined national security.
India.com
26 minutes ago
- India.com
Karnataka Chief Poll Officer Seeks Proof From Rahul Gandhi Over Double-Voting Claim, Says Provide Relevant Documents
Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) V. Anbukumar has issued a notice to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, seeking evidence for his claim that a woman named Shakun Rani voted twice during elections. The notice addressed to Rahul Gandhi said, "In your press conference, you have stated that the documents shown in your presentation are from the records of the Election Commission of India. You said: 'This is EC data'. You have also stated that as per the records given by the polling officer, Smt. Shakun Rani has voted twice. You have said; 'Es ID card per do baar vote laga hai, wo jo tick hai, polling booth ke officer ki hai". (Two votes are given in this Voter ID card. The tick is made by the polling officer)." The Election body stated that MS has voted only once during the election not twice. "On inquiry, Smt. Shakun Rani has stated that she has voted only once and not twice, as alleged by you," the CEO stated. "Therefore, you are kindly requested to provide the relevant documents based on which you have concluded that Smt. Shakun Rani or anyone else has voted twice, so that a detailed inquiry can be undertaken by this office," the CEO said. Earlier, while addressing a massive gathering during the 'Our Vote, Our Right, Our Fight' rally, Rahul Gandhi had demanded that the Election Commission provide the electronic voters' list for the past 10 years along with video recordings.
