SC to examine plea asking if convicted politician can head political party
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi termed the issue raised in 2017 PIL as an "interesting question".
According to the top court, the question should a constitutional court direct that irrespective of your right under Article 19, you will not be entitled to form an association of political ideology only because you are not entitled to cast vote was to be considered.
The bench posted the PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay raising the issue for November 19.
"Merely because a person has been disqualified for a statutory right, you can't ipso facto deprive him of his constitutional right," Justice Kant said.
Upadhyay, appearing in person, said a person disqualified from casting vote cannot distribute party tickets to the candidates.
"This issue needs to be examined as it is a grey area. Several commissions including the law commission has emphasised on the need for not allowing the convicted to head a political party," he said.
The bench called the issue "worth consideration" and noted it had "something in mind" but required a detailed hearing.
Upadhyay said a person who cannot vote or contest can create a political party, even from jail, and political parties govern the entire country.
"Suppose tomorrow Parliament enacts a law that no person will hold public office beyond the age of 80 years, can you also deprive him from leading a political party?" Justice Kant asked.
Upadhyay has sought banning convicted persons from forming political parties and becoming their office bearers for the period they are disqualified.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC Full Bench disposes of plea against removal of flagpoles
1 2 Madurai: Taking into account that Supreme Court upheld the order of the single judge of Madras high court directing the removal of all flagpoles erected by political parties and organisations in public places across the state, a Full Bench of the court on Wednesday disposed of an appeal preferred by CPM state secretary P. Shanmugam. Earlier, the Full Bench directed the state to maintain status quo prevailing as of the date until further orders regarding removal of the flagpoles. It also directed the chief secretary to issue a public notification enabling parties and organisations willing to get impleaded in the appeal. On Wednesday, the Full Bench of Justices S M Subramaniam, R. Vijayakumar, and S. Sounthar took note of the fact that a person preferred a special leave petition before Supreme Court challenging the order passed by a single bench of HC, which ordered removal of all flagpoles from public places. Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition. In view of the fact that the court confirmed the orders of a single bench, which was confirmed by a division bench of Madras HC, no further adjudication needs to be undertaken in respect of the grounds raised in the appeal filed before the Full Bench. The judges said it is for the parties to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, and disposed of the appeal. It was in January that Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan directed parties and organisations such as community, religion, and association to remove their flagpoles erected permanently at public places and land belonging to govt departments and civic bodies across the state. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like NRIs Living In Portugal Are Eligible For INR 2 Lakh Monthly Pension. Invest 18K/Month Get Offer Undo The outfits could erect permanent flagpoles on their own lands with necessary permission. The govt shall frame rules for erection of flagpoles on private lands, he said. In March, a division bench of Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy upheld the order. Subsequently, CPM state secretary Shanmugam filed a petition seeking to forbear the authorities from removing the party's flagpoles across the state. In June, Justice C Saravanan dismissed the petition citing the earlier order passed by a single bench in Jan, which was also upheld by a division bench. Challenging the same, Shanmugam preferred an appeal. Hearing the appeal, a division bench observed that since the single bench order passed in January was already confirmed by a coordinate division bench, it would not be proper on its part to pass any contra order. The judges directed the registry to place the papers before the chief justice of Madras HC to consider constituting a larger bench to decide this appeal. Subsequently, a Full Bench was constituted to hear the appeal. 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.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Electoral Rolls Can't Remain Static": Top Court On Bihar SIR Row
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said electoral rolls cannot "remain static" and were bound to be revised as it disagreed with the submission that special intensive revision (SIR) of voter list in poll-bound Bihar had no basis in law and ought to be quashed. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was informed by NGO Association of Democratic Reforms that the exercise should not be allowed to be carried out pan-India. Aside from the NGO, leaders of opposition parties including Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress have challenged the electoral roll revision drive of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said the ECI notification on SIR ought to be set aside for want of legal basis and never being contemplated in law. He, therefore, contended it couldn't be allowed to go on. The ECI can never conduct such an exercise since inception and it is being done for the first time in history and if allowed to happen only God knows where it will end, he added. "By that logic special intensive revision can never be done. One-time exercise which is done is only for the original electoral roll. To our mind, the electoral roll can never be static," the bench noted. "There is bound to be revision," the top court said, "otherwise, how will the poll panel delete the names of those who are dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies?" The bench went on to tell Sankaranarayanan that the ECI had residual power to conduct such an exercise as it deemed fit. It referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act (RP Act), which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit." Justice Bagchi further asked Sankaranarayanan, "When the primary legislation says 'in such manner as deemed fit' but the subordinate legislation does not... will it not give a residual discretion to ECI to dovetail the procedure not completely in ignorance of rules but some more additives than what the rules prescribe to deal with the peculiar requirement of a special revision?" Sankaranarayanan submitted that the provision only allowed revision of the electoral roll for "any constituency" or "for part of a constituency" and the ECI couldn't wipeout the rolls of an entire state for fresh inclusion. "Actually, it is a battle between a constitutional right and a constitutional power," Justice Bagchi said. The residuary power of the ECI flows from Article 324 of the Constitution and the RP Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the ECI in the instant case has only added the word "intensive", that all, the judge noted. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also appearing for the NGO, alleged the ECI played "mischief" and removed the search feature from the draft roll and the list of 65 lakh people whose names were deleted for being dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies. "This happened just a day after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi did a press conference pointing out over lakh people as fake voters," he added, arguing an ordinary person was denied the right to search their name on the draft roll whether dead or alive or migrated to another place. Justice Kant said he was unaware of any such press conference but when it comes to the Registration of Electors Rule of 1960, Section 10 mandates the election commission to publish a copy of the draft roll at the office in the constituency. "They have to publish the draft roll at the office in the constituency. That's a minimum threshold under the law. However, we would have liked it if it was published on the website for wider publicity," Justice Bagchi said. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, said the petitioners claimed the rural population of Bihar was not tech savvy and now they were talking about the inability of the same people in searching online. During the hearing, the bench also told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for petitioners, that the 11 documents required to be submitted by an elector for Bihar's SIR as opposed to seven documents in summary revision conducted previously showed the exercise was "voter friendly". It said despite petitioners' arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar was exclusionary, it appeared the large number of documents was "actually inclusionary". "The number of documents in summary revision conducted earlier in the state was seven and in SIR it is 11, which shows it is voter friendly. We understand your arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar is exclusionary but a high number of documents is actually inclusionary," the bench said. The hearing will continue on Thursday. On August 12, the top court said inclusion and exclusion of citizens or non-citizens from the electoral rolls was within the remit of the Election Commission and backed its stand to not accept Aadhaar and voter cards as conclusive proof of citizenship in the SIR of voters' list in Bihar.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Helmed by National Award winner, new documentary spotlights crisis in Punjab's higher education
Bathinda: A new documentary, Vidya Vichari Taan Paropkari (Education for Good to Others), helmed by National Award-winning filmmaker Rajeev Kumar and directed by Mohan Singh Aulakh, paints a stark picture of Punjab's higher education system — from rising fees and shrinking scholarships to a severe shortage of regular teachers and crumbling infrastructure. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The film notes how parent-teacher funds, once Rs 150 a year, have climbed to Rs 2,300 in some colleges, and many courses have been pushed into the self-financed category, hiking costs sharply. Fees for some postgraduate courses have jumped from Rs 9,500 to Rs 23,000. Scholarships, which were meant to get books or other resources, are now only to pay fees as the fee for self-financed courses is up to or even more than Rs 40,000 per year. Under such a scenario, students from modest backgrounds are hit the hardest, say Rajeev Kumar. The documentary revealed that there are over 60 govt colleges in Punjab where the sanctioned strength of regular teachers was nearly 2,400. This was reduced to 1,900 in 2009. At present, only 350 posts of regular teachers have been filled, and there are nearly 700 guest faculty. After the Supreme Court quashed the recruitment of 1,158 assistant professor category, the teacher strength has only gotten worse. The documentary also goes into the history of higher education in Punjab, as the state's first govt college was opened at Lahore in undivided Punjab on Jan 1, 1864. It was followed by Govt Mahindra College in Patiala in 1875, Govt College Ludhiana in 1920, Govt College Hoshiarpur in 1927, Govt Rajindra College Bathinda in 1930, Govt Ranbir College Sangrur in 1939, and Brijindra College Faridkot in 1942. Punjab higher education minister Harjot Singh Bains, when contacted, said the state of higher education was not as bad as was being painted in the documentary. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "The strength of students in govt colleges has considerably gone up, especially in humanities and BCom, which are in big demand. We have started 50 new-age courses, and the scholarships have been on time for the last 3 years. Now almost all colleges will have principals, as many colleges have NAAC A++ ranking. We are giving stress on entrepreneurship and research. Despite this, a lot is still to be done," he said. Bains said they had approached lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi to represent the state in the Supreme Court to plead against the quashing of the 1158 assistant professor case through a revision petition. As the Supreme Court has stated that higher education could not be left on the shoulders of guest faculty, and if 1158 professors are removed, Punjab will be left with only 200 regular professors, and new recruitment may take many months to complete, and till then, the students will be the worst sufferers.
