Latest news with #ElectionPetition
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Politics
- 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
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Bombay high court dismisses election petition against BJP legislator R 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. 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. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Resmed AirSense 11 with flat 20% off ResMed Buy Now Undo ' Justice Jadhav, after hearing senior counsel Veerendra Tulzapurkar, who represented Selvan, said he did not subscribe to Krishnan's submission. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai | Gold Rates Today in Mumbai | Silver Rates Today in Mumbai 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.' 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. 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.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
What a clash, SIRji. Why the Opposition-EC feud is unlike any before
Photo/PTI The ongoing tussle between the Election Commission (EC) and the INDIA alliance — barring the Aam Aadmi Party — over the past few months is rather unfortunate. India has seen many fierce contests between ruling parties and the opposition, some prolonged and intense like the anti-Emergency movement, but never such a direct clash. While questions about the neutrality and fairness of the EC have been raised in the past, the current standoff — with both sides trading accusations — marks a new low. The opposition has accused the EC of 'vote chori' (stealing votes), while the EC has hit back, calling these charges baseless and damaging to the institution's credibility. While both sides share responsibility for this situation, the greater onus lies with the EC which could have defused tensions by adopting a less combative tone. Its curt and unresponsive replies to concerns raised by the opposition — particularly by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi — led to a breakdown in even basic communication. It is worth examining how a more open, willing-to-engage response could have kept channels of dialogue intact. While the controversy has intensified in recent weeks, it actually began after the Maharashtra assembly election, when Rahul Gandhi alleged that the polls were rigged by adding fake voters and inflating turnout, particularly in key constituencies. The opposition cited an unusual surge in the number of voters between the 2024 Lok Sabha and 2024 assembly election, claiming that the voter list grew by 8% in just five months in the CM's own constituency. Some booths, according to them, saw a 20-50% surge. The EC dismissed these allegations as 'unsubstantiated' and 'completely absurd,' saying that these points had already been clarified in its 24 December 2024 reply to the INC, available on its website. It also called such claims 'disrespect towards law.' Instead of denials, the EC could have made available the voter lists of the two elections for anyone to verify. The EC also refused to release CCTV footage, citing its legal obligation to protect voter privacy. It further defended its decision to reduce the retention period for CCTV records from one year to 45 days, arguing that this aligned with the legal time limit for filing an Election Petition after results are declared. However, given the ongoing controversy, this change seemed ill-timed. Even if providing booth-level footage was technically difficult, the EC could have at least retained the original one-year storage rule, or even reinstated it to reassure the public. In response to opposition demands for footage, the EC quipped that reviewing recordings from one lakh polling stations would take one lakh days — 273 years — with no legal outcome possible. Yet, simply making the footage available, regardless of review time, might have done more to bolster transparency than withholding it altogether. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo When 300 MPs from the INDIA bloc marched to its office, the EC refused to meet them, citing lack of space and noting that the original request was for a delegation of 30 MPs. Given the sensitivity of the moment, the EC could have shown greater initiative and agreed to meet the larger group, rather than offering an explanation that came across as a weak excuse. There were also demands to provide names of 65 lakh voters deleted from the electoral rolls after the special intensive revision (SIR) in poll-bound Bihar. The EC could have simply said that the list was provisional and that it would share it once the final list was prepared. However, it again defaulted to rigid rule-based responses. Following a recent Supreme Court order, it will now have to publish the list. When Rahul Gandhi alleged 'voter list fraud' in Karnataka's Mahadevapura constituency through duplicate entries, fake addresses and bulk registrations at single locations, the EC could have assured an inquiry, but it took a confrontationist approach and invoked Rule 20(3)(b), demanding an affidavit submitted under oath and documentary evidence. His request for machine-readable rolls was similarly rebuffed, citing a 2019 SC ruling, with the EC adding that such rolls are already available to parties and online, and that Gandhi had not filed a written complaint. The exchange further eroded already fragile communication between the opposition and the Commission. For an institution that guards the ballot, the real danger is not the volume of allegations, but the erosion of public trust when it appears unwilling to engage with them. Kumar is a professor at Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. Views expressed are personal
India Today
21-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Cameras, courts and confidentiality: Inside Election Commission's 45-day rule
While one is hearing whispers from many quarters that videos from the polling stations should be made available, sources with the Election Commission have told India today that this is VOTER SECRECY COMES FIRST - ECIThe Election Commission of India (ECI) has taken a firm stance:It will not yield to political privacy and security are will not be released publicly except under court secrecy is a constitutional guarantee, protected under Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Any violation of this confidentiality is a punishable offence, inviting imprisonment, fines, or FOOTAGE: WHY IT'S STORED AND WHY IT CAN'T BE SHARED Despite mounting pressure from political parties and advocacy groups, polling station footage will not be made public, sources within the Election Commission told India video recordings related to polling are preserved for 45 days after election results are declared in line with the statutory window for filing an Election Petition (EP) under Indian such a petition is filed, the footage is retained until the legal proceedings conclude and may be submitted in court if EXACTLY GETS RECORDED?The Election Commission deploys video surveillance and webcasting extensively to uphold transparency and accountability throughout the election process. Recordings cover:EVM checking and storageMovement and transport of voting machinesActivities inside and outside polling stations on voting dayThe counting processCampaign events and public ralliesadvertisementThis system allows the EC to track expenditures, ensure compliance with the Model Code of Conduct, and address any electoral violations PUBLIC SHARING OF THIS FOOTAGE IS PROBLEMATICDespite its critical role in election monitoring, this footage is not intended for public release. Calls to make it public, although framed as transparency demands, are both misleading and dangerous, the EC cautions. Key Risks Include:Threat to Voter PrivacyPolling footage can unintentionally disclose:Identities of voters entering of individual about voter turnout or access to such data can lead to:Voter profilingTargeted harassment or intimidationRetaliation in areas with low or 'undesirable' turnoutSources in the EC stress that such risks strike at the heart of free and fair LEGAL SHIELD: SECRECY AND THE COURTSSupreme Court Precedent: Right Not to Vote = Right to PrivacyIn the landmark case People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that:Citizens have the right not to right is covered under the right to the act of abstaining from voting must be kept non-voters could expose them to coercion, pressure, or social discrimination, all of which are = A 'LIVE' FORM 17AadvertisementElection footage effectively mirrors Form 17A, a sensitive record maintained at polling stations that logs:Voter arrival roll from polling stations captures similar details, making it equivalent to a 'live' version of Form Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Form 17A is protected from public access and can only be examined under court supervision. Since video footage captures similar data, its public release without legal sanction is equally OF MISUSE: A REAL POSSIBILITYMaking this footage publicly accessible can have severe consequences:Political actors may identify and target voters who didn't support may face harassment, inducement, or social can be edited or misused, fuelling conspiracy theories and prevent such scenarios, the EC discourages footage retention beyond 45 days unless a legal challenge necessitates MEANT FOR INTERNAL OVERSIGHT, NOT PUBLIC DISTRIBUTIONWebcasting serves as a real-time monitoring mechanism for the EC, helping prevent malpractice and streamline election its purpose is strictly a court requires this footage during an election petition, the EC will provide it with full assurance that judicial processes also safeguard voter Watch
India Gazette
21-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Sharing video footage of polling stations during voting day breaches voters' privacy, may lead to discrimination: ECI sources
New Delhi [India], June 21 (ANI): Amid a demand for making available video or CCTV footage of the webcasting of the polling stations during the poll day, EC sources said on Saturday that it is 'entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters' and sharing of the footage would leave both, the elector, who has voted, as well the elector, who has not voted, vulnerable to 'pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements'. EC sources also justified the decision in which Election Commission has asked its state poll officers to destroy CCTV camera, webcasting and video footage of the election process if the election result is not challenged in a court in 45 days. EC sources said some people are raising the demand for making available the video or CCTV footage of the webcasting of the polling stations during the poll day. 'While this suits their narrative in making the demand sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process in the country, it is, in fact aimed at achieving exactly the opposite objective. What is veiled as a very logical demand, is actually entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters, legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950/1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court of India,' a source said. 'Sharing of the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both, the elector who has voted as well the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements. For instance, if a particular political party gets lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and thereafter, may harass or intimidate the electors. Thus, what exactly lies beneath this layered demand of such persons or interest groups needs to be deciphered and exposed, the source added. EC sources said that the Election Commission retains the CCTV footage, which is purely an internal management tool and not a mandatory requirement, for a period of 45 days which aligns with the period laid down for filing an Election Petition (EP). Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of the declaration of the result, retaining of this footage, beyond this period, makes it susceptible to misuse of the content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives, EC sources said. They said in case of an election petition being filed within 45 days, the CCTV footage is not destroyed and also made available to the competent court when asked for. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Saturday said that 'fixed election' is poison for democracy and slammed the EC over its recent decisions, saying 'the one who has to answer, they are destroying evidence'. The Leader of Opposition raised concerns about the integrity of the electoral process, citing the destruction of evidence as a potential indicator of election rigging. 'Voter list? Will not provide machine-readable format. CCTV footage? It was hidden by changing the law. Photo-video of the election? Now, not in 1 year, we will destroy it in 45 days only. The one from whom the answer was needed - is destroying the evidence. It is clear - the match is fixed. And a fixed election is poison for democracy,' Rahul Gandhi said in a post on X. EC sources said that for the Election Commission, safeguarding the interests of its electors and maintaining their privacy and secrecy is of prime concern, even 'if some of the political parties/ interest groups mount pressure on the Commission to abandon the laid down procedures or to ignore the security concerns of the electors'. 'Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable and the ECI has, never in the past, compromised on this essential tenet laid which is down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court,' the source said. 'Sharing of video footage may result in violation of the right of secrecy of electors who have decided not to vote: In any election, there may be electors who decide not to vote. Sharing of video footage of the poll day may result in identification of such electors. This can also lead to profiling of the voters who voted as well as those who did not vote, which may become the basis for discrimination, denial of services, intimidation or inducement,' the source added. Sources said that the apex court has held that that right to vote includes right not to vote and right of secrecy is accorded to even those persons who have decided not to vote. The sources said that providing videography is akin to providing Form 17A. Videography of polling day essentially captures the sequence in which electors enter the polling stations and the photo/identity of such electors. This is akin to a live Form 17A (Register of Voters) under Rule 49L of CE Rules, 1961 which contains information pertaining to sequence in which electors enter a polling station, serial number of the elector in the electoral roll, details of the Identification document produced by the electors and their thumb impression/signature, the sources said. 'Both videography and Form 17A contain information which is critical for upholding the secrecy of voting. It can also establish who has voted and who has not voted as can be ascertained from Form 17A. Form 17A is mandated to be provided only under order of competent court under Rule 93(1) of CE Rules, 1961. Therefore, video footage can also be provided only under the orders of a competent court as whatever is not intended under law cannot be allowed to be achieved by obtaining the video footage,' a source said. The sources said that violation of secrecy of voting is a punishable offence under Section 128 of RP Act, 1951. They said ECI is legally bound and committed to protect the privacy of the electors and secrecy of voting, so video footage from polling station cannot be given to any person, candidate or NGO or any 3rd party without the express consent of the electors. They said webcasting is used basically as an internal management tool by ECI for monitoring poll day activities. (ANI)
