Poll Watchdog Challenges Election Body's Bihar Roll Revision, Moves Court
The Association of Democratic Reforms has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Election Commission's direction for a Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The EC on June 24 issued instructions to carry out an SIR in Bihar, apparently to weed out ineligible names and ensure only eligible citizens are included in the electoral roll.
Bihar goes to the polls later this year.
The NGO has sought the setting aside of the order and communication, arguing that it violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, as well as provisions of the Representation of People's Act, 1950, and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who filed the plea, said the EC order "can arbitrarily and without due process" disenfranchise lakhs of voters and disrupt free and fair elections.
"That the documentation requirements of the directive, lack of due process as well as the unreasonably short timeline for the said Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll in Bihar further make this exercise bound to result in removal of names of lakhs of genuine voters from electoral rolls leading to their disenfranchisement," Prashant Bhushan said.
The last such revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003.
According to the EC, the exercise was necessitated by rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths, and inclusion of the names of foreign illegal immigrants.
It said that with the exercise, it wants to ensure the integrity and preparation of error-free electoral rolls.
The SIR is being conducted by the booth officers, who are conducting a house-to-house survey for verification.
The EC said it will scrupulously adhere to the constitutional and legal provisions as laid down in Article 326 of the Constitution and Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, in carrying out the revision. PTI PKS VN VN
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Amit Shah tables 3 bills in Lok Sabha, sent to JPC amid chaos
Union home minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in the Lok Sabha three contentious bills that bar any minister, chief minister or prime minister from holding the position after getting arrested, amid a storm of Opposition protests and sloganeering that even saw the draft legislation torn up and pieces of paper flung at the minister. Home Minister Amit Shah speaks in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon session of Parliament on Wednesday(Sansad TV) Tempers flared, copies of the bills were torn and members of the ruling and opposition coalitions came face-to-face and jostled in the Lower House, which eventually sent the three bills to a joint parliamentary committee, comprising 21 members of the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha. Some Opposition members charged towards the Well of the House and even headed towards Shah who was introducing the bill around 2pm, forcing a brief adjournment and admonishment from speaker Om Birla. When the House was reconvened at 3pm, 15 marshals were brought inside the House and the home minister introduced the bills from the fourth row, instead of the first, guarded by marshals. 'On one hand, PM Narendra Modi has introduced a constitutional amendment to bring himself into the ambit of law. On the other hand, under the leadership of Congress, the entire opposition has opposed it in order to remain above the law, run governments from jail, and cling to power,' Shah posted on X. The three bills – the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, The Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill and The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill – propose that a sitting minister, chief minister or even the Prime Minister can lose their position within a month if they are arrested or detained for 30 consecutive days over an offence that carries a jail term of five years or more. Shah rose to introduce the three bills – which will require a two-thirds majority in the House to become a law – shortly after 2pm. Almost immediately, at least five opposition MPs opposed it, saying the members were not given time to read the bill, and alleged that the bill will empower agencies to settle political rivalry, target opposition parties and undermine constitutional safeguards. Congress leader KC Venugopal, who also tore a copy of the bill, asked the home minister if he had resigned after being arrested when he was the state home minister in Gujarat. 'The people in BJP are saying that this bill will bring back morality in politics. I want to ask the home minister. He had been arrested. Whether he took the morality of resigning…This bill is to threaten people like Nitish Kumar (Bihar chief minister) and N Chandrababu Naidu (Andhra Pradesh CM).' An irate Shah responded immediately. 'When the allegations were levelled and before the arrest, I resigned on moral grounds. Until the courts passed an order, I did not accept any constitutional post. I want to assure that this bill will ensure morality. We should not have a situation where there are grave allegations and yet the person continues to hold the post,' he said. Trinamool Congress's Trinamool's Kalyan Banerjee, who was standing in front of Shah, turned around and tried to use the minister's microphone to oppose the bill. Some other TMC members hurled papers in front of the minister. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju, who was seated on the second row, rushed to stand between the protestors and Shah. Minister of state Ravneet Singh Bittu also came running down. The bill was finally introduced at 3.02pm after a voice vote and sent to a JPC by 3.05pm after another voice vote. Opposition MPs, including All India Majlis-e- Ittehadul Muslimeen's Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress's Manish Tewari and Venugopal, and Revolutionary Socialist Party's NK Premachandran, spoke against the introduction, terming the proposed law against the Constitution and federalism. Demanding that Shah withdraw the bills, Tewari said they were 'squarely destructive' of the basic structure of the Constitution and turned the fundamental principle of the rule of law that a person is innocent till proven guilty on its head. The bills gave due procedure a go-by and made an investigating officer the 'boss of the Prime Minister of India', he said. Later in the evening, the home minister defended the bills. 'On account of the Modi government's commitment to restoring moral standards in politics and in view of the public resentment towards the menace, today with the Lok Sabha speaker's permission, I tabled constitutional amendment bills that will prevent people from holding important constitutional positions like Prime Minister, chief minister, or Union or state minister while in jail,' Shah later posted on X. He also attacked the Congress. 'I want to remind Congress that I had resigned even before being arrested. I did not hold any constitutional position, even after being released on bail, until the court fully acquitted me…The BJP and the NDA have always stood for moral values. On the other hand, the Congress party continues to carry forward the unethical tradition started by Smt. Indira Gandhi,' he said. The three bills propose an entirely new legal framework that will be applicable to ministers and CMs in states and Union territories such as Jammu & Kashmir, and Union ministers and the PM at the Centre. To be sure, the bills suggest that a dismissed minister, CM or PM can be appointed again after their release from custody. There is currently no provision to remove a sitting minister if they are accused of a crime. Only a Member of Parliament or legislative assembly can lose their seat (and if they're a minister, effectively their ministership) if they are convicted for a crime that carries a punishment of two years imprisonment or more. Owaisi said the bill violated the principle of separation of powers, undermined the elected government and gave executive agencies a free run to become a judge, jury and executioner based on flimsy allegations. 'Only when an offence is proved without reasonable doubt then only you can leave the post and membership. But here a mere accusation, allegation has the punishment of losing a minister post…This amendment will leave the CM and ministers at the mercy of the agencies,' he said.
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
New bills will ensure morality, probity: BJP
New Delhi : The Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday said the three bills moved by union home minister Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha that seek the removal of the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offences if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days, are intended at ensuring 'morality and probity' in public life. Proceedings of the Lok Sabha underway during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday.(Sansad TV/ANI) The party also underlined how its own leaders, from LK Advani to Amit Shah, had stepped down from their positions when they faced allegations of 'corruption and other charges.' 'When the bill was first drafted the PM's office was kept out of the ambit, but PM Modi insisted that the bill should include the head of the union government as well. Where is the question of any political witch hunt?The provisions of the bills are in line with the anti corruption agenda and will apply to all equally,' said a senior party leader, speaking on condition of anonymity. A second party functionary said that the Congress and other opposition parties should 'clearly state the reasons for their opposition to the bill…and whether they support a government being run from behind the bars,' While the opposition joined forces to criticise the bills, dubbing them as undemocratic and against the tenets of federalism -- they see this as a way for the BJP to topple state governments -- the BJP asserted that the move was line with the government's anti corruption agenda and not intended as a tool for vendetta. Amid disruption and protest by the opposition, Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025. The bill seeks to remove the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offence charges if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days. He also introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025; since there is no provision under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019) for such a measure, Section 54 of the Act, needs to be amended to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Chief Minister or a minister in these cases. And he introduced the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which extends the same law to UTs. Senior BJP leaders explained that the bills which have been referred to a joint parliamentary committee that will present its report on the first day of the next session will ensure there is no recurrence of events where a minister or a CM, refused to step down even as charges were framed against them. A third senior party leader, cited the example of former Delhi CM and Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal who was in prison for nearly six months in 2024 in the corruption case lodged by the CBI in connection with the excise policy 'scam', as an example of impropriety. 'There was this case of a sitting CM who was in jail and on August 15, another leader had to step in to unfurl the National Flag… it was against public morality,' added the third leader. On the timing of the Bill, the second leader said the government had thought of bringing the bill soon after Kejriwal's arrest, but decided against it, because it did not want the opposition to paint it as 'a political move to remove Kejriwal'. 'It was about the system and not the individual…' the leader said. He said there have been numerous instances where leaders who were accused of graft and other irregularities had stepped down pending a probe. 'When the Hawala Diaries were made public and LK Advani's name was mentioned, he stepped down as the party president and resigned from his Lok Sabha membership… Shah himself stepped down as minister in Gujarat and more recently Jharkhand CM, Hemant Soren stepped down as CM when he was arrested, and much earlier Lalu Prasad Yadav had to step down as Bihar CM when he was accused of the fodder scam,' the leader said. In 2024, Soren stepped down as CM following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an alleged money laundering case. He went on to say that Shah did not accept any constitutional position till he was acquitted by the court in 2015. 'He could have become union minister or a Rajya Sabha member in 2014 itself, but he chose not to. He became the minister in 2017…' Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Shah referred to his own decision to step down as the home minister of Gujarat till he was cleared of all charges by the courts 'False allegations were levelled against me, and I resigned on moral grounds, and I did not take any constitutional posts until I was cleared of all charges by the courts,' Shah said. The BJP also stepped up its attack on the Congress, pointing out that the party, when it was in power, had attempted to amend the Office of Profit bill to seek exemption for the post of NAC chairperson Sonia Gandhi and several other posts from its ambit. 'When Sonia Gandhi had to resign for holding an office of profit the party tried to amend the provisions. Instead of leading by example and walking the talk on probity and public morality they chose to alter the rules,' the first leader quoted above said. In 2006, Gandhi had to resign as Lok Sabha MP after being accused of holding an office of profit by being a Member of Parliament as well as the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council, which was a post with the rank of a Cabinet minister. Responding to a question whether the government was confident of getting the numbers to pass the bill, the second leader said, 'We don't have the numbers, but we decided to send it to the JPC so that there can be discussion on the bill…Let the opposition stall its passage and explain to the people why they did so.' The BJP also dismissed the opposition's claims that the provisions were violative of the constitution. Responding to AIMIM chief Asasduddin Owaisi's charge that the bills violate the principle of separation of powers and undermine the right of the people to elect a government, the second leader said the bills state that the offences should carry a jail term of five years or more, which implies it will be implemented only in serious cases. 'Thirty days is sufficient time for the courts to consider and pass judgment…the bill also says that the dismissed minister or CM can be appointed again after their release. Where does it undermine the democratic process?'
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
State will be at whim of Governors if bills held up: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong reservations over the Union government's interpretation of the governor's powers under the Constitution, observing that if a governor could permanently withhold assent to bills passed by an elected state legislature, it would effectively leave the state government at the 'whims and fancies' of a nominated office-bearer. Tushar Mehta insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances' The remarks came on the second day of hearings before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, on a presidential reference under Article 143. The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling that had, for the first time, prescribed timelines for governors and the President to decide on bills pending before them. At the heart of Wednesday's arguments was the Centre's reading of the word 'withhold' in Article 200, which solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued empowers a governor to reject a bill outright, leaving it to 'fall through' without the option of being sent back to the legislature. Article 200 entails options for the governor to either grant assent to a bill passed by the state legislature, 'withhold' assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's approval 'This power has to be exercised sparingly and rarely, but this power is there with him,' submitted Mehta, adding that to deny such authority would reduce the governor to 'a mere post office'. The bench, however, pushed back. 'If he does not send the bill again, he can still withhold a bill for time immemorial,' the court pointed out, citing instances such as Tamil Nadu where bills re-enacted by the assembly had remained in limbo without any declaration from the governor. 'Will we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in appeal over the decisions of an elected government? Then, a government elected with majority will be at the whims and fancy of the governor,' it added. The bench also underscored that constitutional interpretation cannot remain 'frozen in time' and must be informed by experience. 'When the laws were made originally, ideal situations were contemplated…But interpretation is a process and it takes into account how these constitutional functionaries are working today.' The bench cited the example of the anti-defection law under the 10th Schedule, where the speaker was originally seen as the best adjudicator, but decades of litigation had forced courts to re-examine that assumption. 'The validity of a constitutional vision comes by its performance and experience,'said the bench, adding that the absence of legislative impact assessments during framing had left provisions such as Article 200 vulnerable to 'complications and disputes'. Mehta, however, insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances', including on matters implicating national security or where a bill may violate fundamental rights. 'His oath of defending the Constitution will require him to exercise this power in the rarest of rare cases,' he said, while cautioning the court against turning the governor into a ceremonial figure. The bench repeatedly pressed the solicitor general on whether the power to 'withhold' could be read as an indefinite veto, pointing out that the proviso to Article 200 itself prohibits a governor from withholding assent once a bill has been re-passed by the assembly. 'If the meaning of withhold is to kill a bill, then how do we reconcile this with the proviso?' the court asked. During the daylong hearing, SG Mehta referred extensively to the Constituent Assembly debates to reinforce his point. The bench, however, posed a pointed question on whether governors in practice have lived up to the vision articulated by the framers of the Constitution, which emphasised harmony between the governor and the elected state government. 'The first part of this speech you are reading says there should be harmony between the governor and the elected government. The second part says that the provincial government would be consulted for the appointment of the governor. Is it done? Whether the expectations expressed during the Constituent Assembly debates have been really realised?' it said. At one point, the bench maintained that the governor must 'declare' or communicate his decision of withholding a bill to the state assembly, adding the central points of debate would be around the meaning of the term 'withhold' and the timeline. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the President when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. While making clear on Tuesday that it is only rendering an advisory opinion and not sitting in appeal over its April decision, the Constitution Bench has indicated that the meaning of 'withhold' under Article 200, and whether such discretion can amount to an absolute veto, will be central to its opinion.
