Latest news with #RanjanGogoi
Indian Express
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Amid Bihar row, Assam wants NRC considered in EC's voter roll revision
Officials from Assam have told the Election Commission (EC) that since it is the only state to have already carried out the exercise of preparing the National Register of Citizens (NRC), this should be factored in whenever the poll panel frames its timelines and decides the list of eligibility documents for the state's special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, The Indian Express has learned. Sources in the Assam government said that since the EC is also looking at the citizenship aspect to determine eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll — and given that Assam has already undertaken a citizenship verification exercise — the NRC, once published, can serve as one of the admissible documents for the SIR. Hence the state's request. This comes even as Opposition parties have alleged that the Bihar SIR has become a de facto citizenship-verifying exercise – 'NRC through the backdoor' – and that's not within the purview of the poll panel. Assam's request, learned to have been made after the Commission's announcement last month of a nationwide intensive revision of electoral rolls starting with Bihar, if accepted, could effectively mean a delay in the state's SIR. This is because the Assam NRC — a Supreme Court-monitored exercise meant to resolve decades of demographic anxieties in the state — remains stuck in limbo. Since the publication of the draft NRC in 2019, which excluded 19.6 lakh individuals from 3.3 crore applicants, the Registrar General of India is yet to notify it and both the BJP-led state governments since then have maintained that they do not find it acceptable in its current form. The objective of the NRC in Assam was to identify Indian citizens and distinguish them from illegal migrants in a state that has witnessed years of protests and political churn over undocumented migration. However, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma is among its critics. The Assam government has maintained that the inclusions and exclusions in it are erroneous, and that excludes 'indigenous people' while including large numbers of 'foreigners' and that the number of people who had entered the state illegally after March 24, 1974 – the cut-off date for the NRC – is far higher than 19 lakh. The question of reverification had been raised by the Central and state government even before the 2019 NRC was finalised but had been denied by the Supreme Court. On July 23, 2019, the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman had observed that NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela had submitted that 27% reverification had already been done during the course of consideration and adjudication of the claims and that the court did not find it necessary for further sample reverification. In a special Assembly session held last month, CM Sarma said that the state government is still in the process of seeking 20% reverification of the list in districts bordering Bangladesh and 10% in the rest of the districts. 'The NRC is about to be released. It will be out in a month or two, most likely by October,' a source said, adding: 'We feel the NRC data, as it has been prepared after verification — and with reverification also in process — will be a perfect document for proving citizenship. It can be one of the documents (to be considered for the intensive revision).' A query sent to the Commission on whether it has considered Assam's request or taken a decision on the matter did not elicit a response. When contacted, Sarma told this newspaper that there has been no 'correspondence' with the EC on this issue. The Election Commission's decision to begin an intensive revision of the electoral roll from Bihar has sparked political opposition in the state, with some parties even moving the Supreme Court against the exercise. The trigger: the list of documents the Commission has asked voters — those registered in Bihar after 2003 — to furnish to prove their eligibility, specifically age and citizenship, to remain on the rolls. The year 2003 has been picked as the cut-off because that was when the last intensive revision took place in Bihar. So, anyone who featured in the 2003 electoral roll is presumed to be a citizen, and is therefore eligible for inclusion in the new roll now being prepared. The petitioners in the Supreme Court have questioned the EC's power to verify the citizenship of voters, the importance of due process in such an exercise, and the timing of the revision itself. The Supreme Court eventually declined to restrain the EC from proceeding with its intensive revision of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar but suggested that the poll panel also consider Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards for the purpose of updating the rolls. This is in addition to the 11 documents listed by ECI which include any identity card or pension payment order issued to a regular employee or pensioner of any Central or State Government/PSU; any identity card, certificate, or document issued by Government/Local Authorities, Banks, Post Office, LIC, or PSU prior to July 1, 1987; a birth certificate issued by the competent authority; passport; matriculation or educational certificate issued by recognised boards or universities; permanent residence certificate issued by the competent state authority; forest rights certificate; OBC, SC, ST, or any caste certificate issued by the competent authority; the National Register of Citizens (where applicable); family register; and land or house allotment certificate issued by the government.
Indian Express
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Assam to Commission: Wait for our NRC before intensive roll revision
Officials from Assam have told the Election Commission (EC) that since it is the only state to have already carried out the exercise of preparing the National Register of Citizens (NRC), this should be factored in whenever the poll panel frames its timelines and decides the list of eligibility documents for the state's special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, The Indian Express has learned. Sources in the Assam government said that since the EC is also looking at the citizenship aspect to determine eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll — and given that Assam has already undertaken a citizenship verification exercise — the NRC, once published, can serve as one of the admissible documents for the SIR. Hence the state's request. This comes even as Opposition parties have alleged that the Bihar SIR has become a de facto citizenship-verifying exercise – 'NRC through the backdoor' – and that's not within the purview of the poll panel. Assam's request, learned to have been made after the Commission's announcement last month of a nationwide intensive revision of electoral rolls starting with Bihar, if accepted, could effectively mean a delay in the state's SIR. This is because the Assam NRC — a Supreme Court-monitored exercise meant to resolve decades of demographic anxieties in the state — remains stuck in limbo. Since the publication of the draft NRC in 2019, which excluded 19.6 lakh individuals from 3.3 crore applicants, the Registrar General of India is yet to notify it and both the BJP-led state governments since then have maintained that they do not find it acceptable in its current form. The objective of the NRC in Assam was to identify Indian citizens and distinguish them from illegal migrants in a state that has witnessed years of protests and political churn over undocumented migration. However, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma is among its critics. The Assam government has maintained that the inclusions and exclusions in it are erroneous, and that excludes 'indigenous people' while including large numbers of 'foreigners' and that the number of people who had entered the state illegally after March 24, 1974 – the cut-off date for the NRC – is far higher than 19 lakh. The question of reverification had been raised by the Central and state government even before the 2019 NRC was finalised but had been denied by the Supreme Court. On July 23, 2019, the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman had observed that NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela had submitted that 27% reverification had already been done during the course of consideration and adjudication of the claims and that the court did not find it necessary for further sample reverification. In a special Assembly session held last month, CM Sarma said that the state government is still in the process of seeking 20% reverification of the list in districts bordering Bangladesh and 10% in the rest of the districts. 'The NRC is about to be released. It will be out in a month or two, most likely by October,' a source said, adding: 'We feel the NRC data, as it has been prepared after verification — and with reverification also in process — will be a perfect document for proving citizenship. It can be one of the documents (to be considered for the intensive revision).' A query sent to the Commission on whether it has considered Assam's request or taken a decision on the matter did not elicit a response. When contacted, Sarma told this newspaper that there has been no 'correspondence' with the EC on this issue. The Election Commission's decision to begin an intensive revision of the electoral roll from Bihar has sparked political opposition in the state, with some parties even moving the Supreme Court against the exercise. The trigger: the list of documents the Commission has asked voters — those registered in Bihar after 2003 — to furnish to prove their eligibility, specifically age and citizenship, to remain on the rolls. The year 2003 has been picked as the cut-off because that was when the last intensive revision took place in Bihar. So, anyone who featured in the 2003 electoral roll is presumed to be a citizen, and is therefore eligible for inclusion in the new roll now being prepared. The petitioners in the Supreme Court have questioned the EC's power to verify the citizenship of voters, the importance of due process in such an exercise, and the timing of the revision itself. The Supreme Court eventually declined to restrain the EC from proceeding with its intensive revision of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar but suggested that the poll panel also consider Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards for the purpose of updating the rolls. This is in addition to the 11 documents listed by ECI which include any identity card or pension payment order issued to a regular employee or pensioner of any Central or State Government/PSU; any identity card, certificate, or document issued by Government/Local Authorities, Banks, Post Office, LIC, or PSU prior to July 1, 1987; a birth certificate issued by the competent authority; passport; matriculation or educational certificate issued by recognised boards or universities; permanent residence certificate issued by the competent state authority; forest rights certificate; OBC, SC, ST, or any caste certificate issued by the competent authority; the National Register of Citizens (where applicable); family register; and land or house allotment certificate issued by the government. Have been in journalism covering national politics for 23 years. Have covered six consecutive Lok Sabha elections and assembly polls in almost all the states. Currently writes on ruling BJP. Always loves to understand what's cooking in the national politics (And ventures into the act only in kitchen at home). ... Read More Ritika Chopra, an award-winning journalist with over 17 years of experience, serves as the Chief of the National Bureau (Govt) and National Education Editor at The Indian Express in New Delhi. In her current role, she oversees the newspaper's coverage of government policies and education. Ritika closely tracks the Union Government, focusing on the politically sensitive Election Commission of India and the Education Ministry, and has authored investigative stories that have prompted government responses. Ritika joined The Indian Express in 2015. Previously, she was part of the political bureau at The Economic Times, India's largest financial daily. Her journalism career began in Kolkata, her birthplace, with the Hindustan Times in 2006 as an intern, before moving to Delhi in 2007. Since then, she has been reporting from the capital on politics, education, social sectors, and the Election Commission of India. ... Read More
Hans India
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
3 ex CJIs back simultaneous polls
New Delhi: FormerChief Justices of India, who have conveyed their views to a parliamentary committee on the bill proposing simultaneous polls, have endorsed the constitutionality of the 'one nation, one election' concept but have raised concerns over its various aspects, including the power given to the Election Commission, and offered suggestions. Former CJI D Y Chandrachud, in his opinion submitted to the Joint Committee of Parliament, has dismissed the Opposition's criticism that the synchronisation of Lok Sabha and state Assembly polls violates the Constitution's basic structure, saying the Constitution never mandated holding national and state elections separately. However, he has joined another ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi in questioning the 'sweeping powers' granted to the Election Commission in the proposed constitutional amendment law 'without laying down any guidelines for the exercise of the discretion', according to the opinion submitted to the parliamentary panel. Chandrachud and another former CJI J S Kehar are scheduled to appear before the committee headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary on July 11 so that members can interact with them over the bill's provisions and seek their views on their queries. Questioning the vast powers the bill seeks to bestow on the EC, Chandrachud said such 'unbounded authority' could enable the poll body to curtail or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond the constitutionally mandated five years, under the pretext that simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha are not feasible. The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power, he added. Two former CJIs, U U Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, had appeared before the committee in February and March, respectively. During the interaction, Gogoi agreed with the concerns of some members over the excessive power given to the EC, sources have said. Lalit had suggested that simultaneous polls should be rolled out in a staggered manner and not at one go, as he had said that cutting short the remaining terms of assemblies with substantive tenure left for the purpose of synchronising election cycles could be legally challenged. However, all three ex-CJIs have not questioned the constitutionality of the concept of simultaneous polls. Chandrachud said in his written opinion that simultaneous elections will not infringe upon the voters' right to elect their representatives and that the bill ensures that electors remain continuously represented by their duly elected MPs or MLAs. He said, 'Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive and can be easily manipulated.' He said, 'The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution's basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature.' However, his opinion is not without notes of caution over some of the bill's features or the likely implications if it is to be enacted. Chandrachud has appeared to share the concern that simultaneous elections could marginalise smaller or regional parties due to the dominance of better-resourced national parties, saying it is a significant policy aspect that warrants legislative attention. He said, 'To ensure a level playing field among political parties, the rules governing electoral campaigning, particularly those relating to campaign finance, must be strengthened.' While the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, impose ceilings on the amount a candidate may spend during the election campaign, there are no corresponding limits on the expenditure incurred by political parties themselves, he noted. This gap in regulation weighs in the electoral process towards parties with greater financial resources, he said. As the bill says that the term of a House elected after a midterm poll will be only for the remainder of the five year term, Chandrachud has said the ability of the government to take any meaningful project will be minimised if its tenure is only of a year or less as the Model Code of Conduct will come into force around six months before the next polls. Several MPs in the panel have also raised this point about the likely priorities and strength of a government elected for a short period.
NDTV
06-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
3 Ex Chief Justices Support Simultaneous Polls, But Flag Issues In Bill
New Delhi: Former chief justices of India, who have conveyed their views to a parliamentary committee on the bill proposing simultaneous polls, have endorsed the constitutionality of the 'one nation, one election' concept but have raised concerns over its various aspects, including the power given to the Election Commission, and offered suggestions. Former CJI D Y Chandrachud, in his opinion submitted to the Joint Committee of Parliament, has dismissed the opposition's criticism that the synchronisation of Lok Sabha and state assembly polls violates the Constitution's basic structure, saying the Constitution never mandated holding national and state elections separately. However, he has joined another ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi in questioning the 'sweeping powers' granted to the Election Commission in the proposed constitutional amendment law 'without laying down any guidelines for the exercise of the discretion', according to the opinion submitted to the parliamentary panel. Chandrachud and another former CJI J S Kehar are scheduled to appear before the committee headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary on July 11 so that members can interact with them over the bill's provisions and seek their views on their queries. Questioning the vast powers the bill seeks to bestow on the EC, Chandrachud said such 'unbounded authority' could enable the poll body to curtail or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond the constitutionally mandated five years, under the pretext that simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha are not feasible. The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power, he added. Two former CJIs, U U Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, had appeared before the committee in February and March, respectively. During the interaction, Gogoi agreed with the concerns of some members over the excessive power given to the EC, sources have said. Lalit had suggested that simultaneous polls should be rolled out in a staggered manner and not at one go, as he had said that cutting short the remaining terms of assemblies with substantive tenure left for the purpose of synchronising election cycles could be legally challenged. However, all three ex-CJIs have not questioned the constitutionality of the concept of simultaneous polls. Chandrachud said in his written opinion that simultaneous elections will not infringe upon the voters' right to elect their representatives and that the bill ensures that electors remain continuously represented by their duly elected MPs or MLAs. He said, 'Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive and can be easily manipulated.' He said, 'The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution's basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature.' However, his opinion is not without notes of caution over some of the bill's features or the likely implications if it is to be enacted. Chandrachud has appeared to share the concern that simultaneous elections could marginalise smaller or regional parties due to the dominance of better-resourced national parties, saying it is a significant policy aspect that warrants legislative attention. He said, 'To ensure a level playing field among political parties, the rules governing electoral campaigning, particularly those relating to campaign finance, must be strengthened.' While the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, impose ceilings on the amount a candidate may spend during the election campaign, there are no corresponding limits on the expenditure incurred by political parties themselves, he noted. This gap in regulation weighs in the electoral process towards parties with greater financial resources, he said. As the bill says that the term of a House elected after a midterm poll will be only for the remainder of the five year term, Chandrachud has said the ability of the government to take any meaningful project will be minimised if its tenure is only of a year or less as the Model Code of Conduct will come into force around six months before the next polls. Several MPs in the panel have also raised this point about the likely priorities and strength of a government elected for a short period.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Ex-CJIs endorse constitutionality of simultaneous poll but flag issues
Former chief justices of India, who have conveyed their views to a parliamentary committee on the bill proposing simultaneous polls, have endorsed the constitutionality of the one nation, one election concept but have raised concerns over its various aspects, including the power given to the Election Commission, and offered suggestions. Former CJI D Y Chandrachud, in his opinion submitted to the Joint Committee of Parliament, has dismissed the opposition's criticism that the synchronisation of Lok Sabha and state assembly polls violates the Constitution's basic structure, saying the Constitution never mandated holding national and state elections separately. However, he has joined another ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi in questioning the sweeping powers granted to the Election Commission in the proposed constitutional amendment law without laying down any guidelines for the exercise of the discretion, according to the opinion submitted to the parliamentary panel. Chandrachud and another former CJI J S Kehar are scheduled to appear before the committee headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary on July 11 so that members can interact with them over the bill's provisions and seek their views on their queries. Questioning the vast powers the bill seeks to bestow on the EC, Chandrachud said such unbounded authority could enable the poll body to curtail or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond the constitutionally mandated five years, under the pretext that simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha are not feasible. The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power, he added. Two former CJIs, U U Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, had appeared before the committee in February and March, respectively. During the interaction, Gogoi agreed with the concerns of some members over the excessive power given to the EC, sources have said. Lalit had suggested that simultaneous polls should be rolled out in a staggered manner and not at one go, as he had said that cutting short the remaining terms of assemblies with substantive tenure left for the purpose of synchronising election cycles could be legally challenged. However, all three ex-CJIs have not questioned the constitutionality of the concept of simultaneous polls. Chandrachud said in his written opinion that simultaneous elections will not infringe upon the voters' right to elect their representatives and that the bill ensures that electors remain continuously represented by their duly elected MPs or MLAs. He said, Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive and can be easily manipulated. He said, The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution's basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature. However, his opinion is not without notes of caution over some of the bill's features or the likely implications if it is to be enacted. Chandrachud has appeared to share the concern that simultaneous elections could marginalise smaller or regional parties due to the dominance of better-resourced national parties, saying it is a significant policy aspect that warrants legislative attention. He said, To ensure a level playing field among political parties, the rules governing electoral campaigning, particularly those relating to campaign finance, must be strengthened. While the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, impose ceilings on the amount a candidate may spend during the election campaign, there are no corresponding limits on the expenditure incurred by political parties themselves, he noted. This gap in regulation weighs in the electoral process towards parties with greater financial resources, he said. As the bill says that the term of a House elected after a midterm poll will be only for the remainder of the five year term, Chandrachud has said the ability of the government to take any meaningful project will be minimised if its tenure is only of a year or less as the Model Code of Conduct will come into force around six months before the next polls. Several MPs in the panel have also raised this point about the likely priorities and strength of a government elected for a short period.
