Exercise not the problem, timing is: SC to EC on SIR
The ECI also justified the exercise and said Aadhaar wasn't a "proof of citizenship".
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi questioned Dwivedi over the exclusion of Aadhaar card in the SIR drive in Bihar and said the ECI had nothing to do with citizenship of a person and it was the Ministry of Home Affairs' domain.
Dwivedi responded while referring to Article 326 of the Constitution and said every voter has to be an Indian citizen and "Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship".
Top court asked EC to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, ration cards in Bihar electoral roll revision
Justice Dhulia said, 'If you are to check citizenship under SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, then you should have acted early; it is a bit late.'
The bench, in the meantime, rejected the submission of the petitioners' counsel that the ECI did not have power to conduct any such exercise in Bihar for it was mandated under the Constitution and the last such exercise happened in 2003.
While referring to the petitioners' contentions, the bench said the ECI had to answer three questions as the SIR exercise in Bihar went to "root of democracy and power to vote".
The questions of the petitioners, including political parties and their leaders aside from civil society members and organisations, deal with the ECI's power to conduct such an exercise and its timing.
Dwivedi said with passage of time, electoral rolls need to be revised to look into inclusion or exclusion of voter names with the SIR being the one exercise to do it.
He asked if the ECI did not have the power to revise the electoral roll then who did.
The poll panel, however, assured the top court of not leaving out anyone from the voter list without an opportunity to be heard.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Zohran Mamdani under fire for lavish Uganda wedding: 'Socialism for thee, not for me'
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is facing backlash after reports of a lavish three-day wedding celebration at his family's estate in Uganda. According to The New York Post, the Indian-origin Democratic Socialist celebrated his wedding to Rama Duwaji in a wealthy suburb outside Kampala. The Indian-origin Democratic Socialist celebrated his wedding to Rama Duwaji in a wealthy suburb outside Kampala.(Getty Images via AFP) Although Mamdani, 33, tied the knot last year, the Uganda event appeared to be extravagant. It reportedly featured armed guards, a cellphone jamming system to prevent photo leaks, and tight security around the estate. A source quoted in the Post claimed that masked special forces were stationed outside the compound to guard the invitation-only event. The revelations quickly drew criticism online, particularly from those questioning Mamdani's political positions on public safety. "NYC Mayor candidate Zohran Mamdani has run on the platform of defunding the police and abolishing prisons but this is his private security outside his family compound in Uganda. Don't those that can't afford private security, also deserve to feel safe and protected?" said one X user. Another added, "Zohran Mamdani wants to ban all guns and defund the police, then flies to Uganda for his wedding, guarded by masked special forces at his family's multimillion-dollar compound. Socialism for thee, not for me." A third user taunted Mamdani's lavish celebration, mocking him as a "man of the people". "Zohran Mamdani: Nothing says American like getting married on your family's luxury Uganda compound. A man of the people," they added. "So it's ok to have masked military for his wedding but ICE isn't supposed to wear masks?" quipped a fourth user. Others criticised Mamdani's privilege in the East African country. "He is privileged. He offers freebies because he's incapable of taking any real steps to improve the economy, as that requires effort."
India.com
10 minutes ago
- India.com
RSS Chief Bhagwat Invokes Yogi Arvinds Vision For Hindu Rashtra; Says, First Understand...
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday asserted that the rise of Sanatan Dharma and the emergence of a Hindu nation are inevitable, echoing the words of Yogi Arvind. Speaking at the 'Gyan Sabha', a national education conference organised by the Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas, Bhagwat said, "Yogi Arvind said that it is God's will for the Sanatan Dharma to rise and for the rise of Sanatan Dharma, the rise of the Hindu nation is inevitable. These are his words, and we see that today's world needs this vision. Therefore, we will have to first understand what Bharat is" Bhagwat said that India's identity must be preserved, asserting that if you lose your identity, no matter how good you are, the world will neither respect nor protect you. "Bharat is a proper noun. It should not be translated. 'India that is Bharat' is true. But Bharat is Bharat, and that is why, while writing and speaking, we should keep Bharat as Bharat... Bharat must remain Bharat. The identity of Bharat is respected because it is Bharat. If you lose your identity, whatever other meritorious qualities you may have, you will never be respected or secure in this world. That is the thumb rule,' Bhagwat said. Bhagwat also called for India to move beyond the symbolism of being the 'golden bird' and instead become a 'lion', asserting that the world recognises and respects power. 'The world understands power. Therefore, Bharat must become strong. It must also grow rich in economic terms,' Bhagwat said, stressing that strength and prosperity are essential for India to find its rightful place in the global order. Touching on the theme of national identity, Bhagwat made a strong case for preserving the name 'Bharat' without translation. 'Bharat is a proper noun. It should not be translated. 'India is Bharat' — that's true. But Bharat is Bharat. In every context — whether personal or public, while speaking or writing — we should say Bharat,' he emphasised. The RSS chief also spoke at length about the purpose and values of education, stating that true education empowers an individual to live independently while inculcating a spirit of sacrifice and selflessness. 'Education that teaches selfishness is not real education,' he declared. He further said that education is not confined to schools alone but extends to the home and society. 'The environment in which children grow up plays a crucial role. Society must reflect on what kind of atmosphere is needed to raise a confident and responsible generation,' Bhagwat said. The conference was attended by Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, along with several senior academicians and vice-chancellors from across India. President of Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas, Dr Pankaj Mittal, Secretary Dr Atul Kothari, Coordinator A Vinod, Chairman of Cochin Shipyard Madhu Nair were also present. The event focused on reshaping the country's educational framework in alignment with Indian cultural values and preparing the youth to face future challenges with clarity and confidence.
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Gutkha Ban Vs Tasmac Sales: Contradiction in Tamil Nadu's Public Health Policy
Srimathi Venkatachari In Tamil Nadu, public health policy treads a morally ambiguous line between constitutional commitment and commercial convenience. The state, invoking Article 47 of the Constitution—mandating the govt to improve nutrition and public health and prohibit intoxicating substances — has banned gutka and pan masala citing cancer risks. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At the same time, it operates and profits from the largest govt-run liquor retail monopoly in India: Tasmac. With more than `44,000 crore in annual revenue, the contradiction is not just glaring —it's institutional. This paradox reveals a deeper policy schizophrenia. On the one hand, the govt frames itself as a paternalistic guardian, shielding citizens from harmful substances. On the other, it plays bartender to the masses, peddling alcohol from every street corner, including those adjacent to schools, temples, and homes. The result is a public health framework that outlaws cancer but subsidizes cirrhosis. The 2013 ban on chewable tobacco was enforced under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, a legislative tool designed to protect citizens from hazardous food items. The move received judicial backing. In Godawat Pan Masala Products Co. vs Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the States' autonomy under the Food Safety law to restrict or ban harmful substances. Madras High Court, in Rathinam Enterprises vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) went further, approving the selective ban on processed tobacco while permitting the sale of raw tobacco leaves. Contrast this with the legal regime for alcohol. Here, Tamil Nadu enjoys a golden goose thanks to Entry 8 of the state list in the Constitution. It grants states the sole authority to regulate alcohol production, distribution and sale. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now As a result, the same govt that brands gutka a public enemy becomes a benevolent supplier of alcohol. Public health, in this calculus, bends easily to revenue imperatives. Legally, the state walks a careful line, but the cracks are evident. In state of Tamil Nadu vs K Balu (2017) the Supreme Court upheld state-imposed curbs on liquor sales, especially near national highways, affirming the govt's power to regulate in the public interest. Yet, public interest becomes an elastic term when liquor shops mysteriously reappear just meters from their original locations after 'relocation'. Citizens see through this charade. A Tasmac outlet may comply with zoning laws on paper while operating adjacent to residential zones in practice. Alcoholism, domestic violence and road fatalities climb, but liquor counters stay open, often with police protection. The result is what might be termed 'constitutional tokenism': the use of selective bans to appear health-conscious while running a vast, state-sponsored liquor empire. This satisfies constitutional formalities under the doctrine of 'reasonable classification' but fails the test of equity, ethics and lived experience. The social cost of alcohol consumption in Tamil Nadu is immense. Studies link it to rising domestic violence, workplace absenteeism, school dropouts and road accidents. Women's groups routinely protest Tasmac shops that operate in close proximity to homes, citing increased insecurity and disruption of family life. Many of these protests are met with silence or police force. Meanwhile, the fiscal reliance on liquor revenue makes meaningful reform nearly impossible. In some districts, revenue from Tasmac outstrips allocations for education and public health. The irony is cruel: schools go underfunded while liquor outlets enjoy round-the-clock supply chains. What makes this even more concerning is the regressive nature of this taxation. The poorest — daily-wage workers and labourers — spend disproportionately more on alcohol, while the state grows dependent on their addiction to meet budgetary targets. The paradox sharpens further when one looks at class. Elite society indulges alcohol in private clubs and gated communities, often with imported spirits and minimal state scrutiny. For the working class, Tasmac is the only accessible vendor, public, noisy, often unsafe. The state's liquor policy therefore not only sustains addiction, it stratifies it. The poor buy what the state sells; the rich import what the state ignores. There is no easy solution. Prohibition is neither feasible nor desirable, as Gujarat's failed experiment shows. But surely there is a middle path, one that involves decentralising liquor retail, investing in de-addiction centres, raising awareness about substance abuse, and capping the density of outlets in urban and rural areas. Most importantly, the state must confront its moral conflict: it cannot pose as a public health crusader while acting as the chief purveyor of addiction. Tamil Nadu's policymakers must ask themselves a basic question. Should the health of its people depend on the sale of what ails them? (The writer is an advocate in the Madras high court) Email your feedback with name and address to
