Supreme Court rejects plea to cancel Maharashtra polls over 'bogus votes' claim
The Supreme Court bench led by Justices MM Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh questioned the locus standi of the petitioner.Speaking about the issue in Delhi after the hearing, Ahire's advocate and Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi chief Prakash Ambedkar said it was unfortunate that the Supreme Court did not even hear the petition."The question centred around who is Chetan Ahire. We said that he is a citizen of the country and a voter. But the court unfortunately did not hear it. If this is going to be the trend, where a citizen and a voter cannot file a petition or appeal, then in the coming days no one will file petitions," Ambedkar said.Earlier, the Bombay High Court noted that the petition relied on third-party information and lacked a valid election petition under the Representation of the People Act. "There is not a scratch of legal injury suffered by the petitioner," the High Court had ruled while dismissing the plea.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Can elected govt be at whims and fancies of Governor, asks CJI
The Supreme Court bench hearing the Presidential reference asked the government Wednesday whether an elected government can be placed at 'the whims and fancies of the Governor' by vesting him/her with the power to withhold a Bill forever. 'But then would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeals?… The government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the Governor,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Centre. The bench said that to interpret that the Bill 'dies' the first time the Governor withholds it 'would be counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process'. The five-judge Constitution bench is hearing President Droupadi Murmu's reference on timelines fixed by a two-judge bench for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state legislatures. Delving into the contours of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, Mehta told the bench: 'It is not an asylum for retired politicians but has its own sanctity which was debated in the Constituent Assembly.' He said the Governor, though unelected, represents the President and is not just a 'postman' to mechanically approve Bills. 'A person who is not directly elected is not a lesser person,' he said. Addressing the bench which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, Mehta said the Governor has the option to grant assent to a Bill referred by the state legislature, withhold assent, refer it to the President in case of repugnancy with any Central law or return it to the state legislature for reconsideration. He said withholding is not a temporary act, and that 5-judge and 7-judge benches of the Supreme Court have interpreted it to mean that the Bill 'falls through'. Illustrating this, he said, 'Suppose a border state passes a Bill dealing with our external affairs, that we will permit a particular country's people to enter or not, then he cannot assent, he cannot refer it to President because it's not a repugnancy issue, and he cannot resend it to the House because if it is again passed, he cannot say no to it. So he will have to withhold.' He said the power 'has to be used rarely, sparingly, but that is the way the situation is'. The CJI then asked, 'If he doesn't exercise the option of resending the Bill for reconsideration, he can withhold it for time immemorial?' 'It dies,' Mehta said, reiterating that 'it (the power) is to be used rarely but power is conferred.' He said, 'The very language in which Article 200 is couched, it gives him options.' He said 'neither textually nor contextually, it is possible to conclude that the term withhold will have to be read as a temporary suspension of powers of granting assent till first proviso works out. There is no concept of temporary withholding of any Bill. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to link the term withhold in the main part of Article 200 to read only in the context of first proviso, two things would have been provided: (a) term withhold in the main part would have been qualified with the term subject to first proviso mentioned therein, (b) the first proviso would have mentioned that the Bill so withheld shall be reconsidered by the House, which is not there.' Justice Narasimha said the options must remain open-ended so that the political process has the chance to resolve the deadlock over a Bill. 'The way the political process occurs is not adjudicatory. Even assuming the Governor says I withhold, the political process can knock his doors and he can still open it and say, I will send it back to you, you consider and send it back. But to say… the first time he says, I withhold, the matter comes to an end… It can't be like that. It is counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process also. It has to be in a situation where it is open-ended,' he said. He was quick to add that the court understood that the Solicitor General was referring to Bills on subjects in the Union List. On the debate over the discretionary powers of the Governor, Justice Narasimha said, 'At that time we did not have impact assessment of a statute … Now, you see the amount of litigation it has thrown up by having provisions of this nature. Perhaps that could tell us whether the vision was right or not. Because the validity or correctness of a thought will come from its performance.' Mehta said he was 'not arguing that the Governor has unlimited discretion'. CJI Gavai said, 'We have some experience as to how some honourable Governors have exercised their discretion leading to so many litigations, but we are not going by that.' Mehta said, 'Indian democracy is a matured democracy. There may be aberrations on an individual level. But by and large, the democracy under this very Constitution has worked very effectively. And I personally experienced it during Covid times, how the Centre-state federal balance envisaged was on display. So it would be really hazardous to assess on the basis of some aberrations.'
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bombay High Court dismisses election petition against BJP legislator Tamil Selvan
Mumbai: Observing that the petition comprised vague and generic pleadings, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed against the victory of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Captain R Tamil Selvan. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He won from the Sion-Koliwada constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. Selvan petitioned the HC for the dismissal of the petition filed by Ganesh Kumar Yadav, the Indian National Congress (INC) candidate who emerged with the second-highest votes. Yadav earlier this year filed the election petition and, through his counsel Premlal Krishnan, challenged Selvan's election on grounds of non-compliance with certain rules and provisions, including those governing valid nominations under Section 33 of the Representation of People (RP) Act. Justice Milind Jadhav, who pronounced the judgment on Tuesday, said, "It is, however, prima facie seen that the Election Petition comprises vague and generic pleadings and there is a complete absence of material facts." Krishnan argued that averments in the petition were enough to lay the foundation for the challenge. Justice Jadhav noted that Krishnan "fairly argued that though what Petitioner will prove in evidence is not specifically in so many words stated in the Election Petition … Petitioner should be allowed to prove the same in trial. " Justice Jadhav, after hearing senior counsel Veerendra Tulzapurkar, who represented Selvan, said he did not subscribe to Krishnan's submission. The allegations, including "non-disclosure" of an arbitration award in favour of the Railways, were of "vague violations" by Selvan with no specific details whatsoever, the HC said, adding, "Alleged omissions do not amount to non-compliance with provisions of Section 33 or Rule 4A so as to constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RP Act." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The HC said, "It is seen that on scrutiny, the Returning Officer has not found any ambiguity or mistake, much less, non-disclosure or falsehood which can be deemed as suppression. It is in this context that when the Election Petitioner approaches the Court, he has to make a concise material statement of facts with all details in the Petition itself at the threshold. The Petitioner cannot improve his case in further pleadings, which is the attempt of Petitioner before me. " Once Selvan's nomination was held to be valid, it is deemed accepted and can only be rejected at the time of scrutiny. When the Returning Officer on scrutiny endorses each nomination, the nomination is considered valid, the HC held. The HC agreed with Tulzapurkar's submissions seeking dismissal of the EP as it does not contain a concise statement of material facts as mandated under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
State doubles down on 6-6-5 matrix for Scheduled Castes, plans panel to monitor reservation
Bengaluru: Barely 24 hours after a special cabinet meeting which decided on a 6-6-5 formula for internal reservation among Scheduled Castes, chief minister Siddaramaiah said the govt will set up a Permanent Scheduled Castes Commission to periodically study socio-economic mobility of communities and recommend changes in the quota structure. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Making a formal statement in the assembly Wednesday, Siddaramaiah clarified that the govt had not rejected the Justice HN Nagamohan Das Commission report as alleged by the opposition. "The govt is pleased to place before this House that the report of Justice Nagamohan Das has been accepted with modifications," Siddaramaiah said. "We believe that this decision will do justice to the decades-long struggle for internal reservation." He said the got will soon begin recruitment under the new matrix, with a one-time relaxation in age limit. He also said cases filed against activists who fought for internal reservation will be withdrawn and future revisions in quota distribution would be based on data from the upcoming national census. He said restructuring of the Commission's report was intended to ensure fairness. "These changes were made to ensure equality and fairness in access to education, employment and other opportunities for all 101 Scheduled Castes. In making this decision, the cabinet has adhered to the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment," he said. Detailing modifications, Siddaramaiah said: "Communities identified by the Commission as Left-Hand section will be provided 6% internal reservation; the Commission had grouped castes such as Paraya and Mogera (Right-Hand) with the Left-Hand section. The cabinet decided to retain these communities with the Right-Hand group, and therefore, 6% reservation will be given to the Right-Hand section." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Nagamohan Das had suggested 4% reservation for touchable castes and 1% for 59 castes with a combined population of 5,22,099, categorised as sub-group A. Siddaramaiah said the cabinet had merged these two categories for administrative reasons and provide 5% reservation together. Siddaramaiah said the govt's move was consistent with constitutional provisions and referred to Supreme Court judgments to assert that the state govt has the authority to sub-classify SCs. While Congress hailed the decision as a milestone in social justice, opposition BJP said the framework was prepared by its govt earlier and Congress was only rehashing and presenting it again. With speaker UT Khader disallowing a debate, BJP members staged a walkout in protest. Deputy CM DK Shivakumar remarked: "We have resolved an issue that was pending for 25 years. The Scheduled Caste community is happy. I appeal to you (opposition) to be happy too." Khader said that while the opposition's demand for a debate was valid, the govt was also within its rights to refuse. He said the matter may be taken up on Friday if time permits.
