Latest news with #RepresentationofthePeopleAct
Hans India
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
We have power to seek proof of citizenship: EC to SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it has the statutory and constitutional authority to seek proof of citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. Defending its action in a counter-affidavit filed in the batch of petitions challenging the SIR process, the ECI rejected the argument that it was overstepping its jurisdiction by asking individuals to prove citizenship. It asserted that this obligation flows from Article 326 of the Constitution and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 'ECI is vested with the power to scrutinize whether a proposed elector fulfils the criteria for being registered as a voter in the electoral roll, which includes an assessment of citizenship as per Article 326,' stated the affidavit filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar. The ECI added that its powers flow directly from Articles 324 and 326 read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act, 1950. Highlighting Section 19, the Commission emphasised that citizenship is a key eligibility criterion for voter registration. It is thus obligated to verify this condition to ensure that no ineligible person is included and no eligible person excluded. The ECI rejected the contention that only the central government can adjudicate citizenship issues, clarifying that Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, vests exclusive jurisdiction with the Centre only for determining termination of citizenship upon voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. 'Other aspects related to citizenship can be inquired into by other relevant authorities for their purposes, including the ECI,' it stated.
United News of India
15 hours ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC refuses to entertain Baghel's plea against nephew's election petition
New Delhi, Jul 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a plea by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel challenging an election petition filed against him by his nephew and BJP leader Vijay Baghel, which alleged violation of the mandated silence period norms during the 2023 Assembly elections. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition as withdrawn while granting Baghel liberty to approach the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal to raise the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue. 'If such an application is filed, the High Court is requested to decide it after giving an opportunity of being heard to the other side and before proceeding on merits. Observations made in the said order shall have no bearing on the application sought to be moved,' the Bench clarified. Baghel had approached the apex court against the Chhattisgarh High Court's dismissal of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of Vijay Baghel's election petition. Appearing for Baghel, Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, along with Advocate Sumeer Sodhi, argued that breach of silence period norms does not amount to 'corrupt practice' under election law and hence, the election petition was not maintainable. However, the Bench suggested that the issue be raised before the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal. In the 2023 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections, Bhupesh Baghel (Indian National Congress) and Vijay Baghel (Bharatiya Janata Party) contested against each other from the Patan constituency, with Bhupesh Baghel emerging victorious. Subsequently, Vijay Baghel filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices, including violation of the 48-hour silence period mandated under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act. It was claimed that Bhupesh Baghel organised a rally or roadshow during the silence period, where slogans were raised in his favour. This was allegedly video-graphed and photographed by Vijay Baghel's election agent. In his defence, Bhupesh Baghel contended that the election petition was vague and did not disclose any triable cause of action. Upon dismissal of his application by the High Court, he approached the Supreme Court, which today declined to interfere. UNI SNG SSP
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
'Aadhaar, voter, ration cards considered only for identification': EC justifies SIR in Bihar
The Election Commission of India has justified its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar saying it adds to the purity of the election by "weeding out ineligible persons" from the electoral rolls. The affidavit filed by the poll panel in a plea challenging June 24 order directing SIR of electoral roll pan-India starting from Bihar said despite legal concerns, Aadhaar , voter card and ration card were already being considered by the commission for the limited purpose of identity during the SIR-2025 exercise. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category PGDM Finance others Leadership Degree Data Science Design Thinking Others Management healthcare Operations Management Product Management Public Policy Cybersecurity Data Analytics CXO MBA Digital Marketing Technology MCA Data Science Project Management Skills you'll gain: Financial Analysis & Decision Making Quantitative & Analytical Skills Organizational Management & Leadership Innovation & Entrepreneurship Duration: 24 Months IMI Delhi Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Online) Starts on Sep 1, 2024 Get Details "The SIR exercise adds to the purity of elections by weeding out ineligible persons from the electoral roll. The entitlement to vote flows from Article 326 read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act 1950 and Section 62 of the RP Act 1951 which contains certain qualifications with respect to citizenship, age, and ordinary residency. An ineligible person has no right to vote, and thus, cannot claim a violation of Articles 19 and 21 in this regard," the poll panel said in a detailed affidavit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Remember Him? Sit Down Before You See What He Looks Like Now 33 Bridges Undo It referred to the July 17 order of the top court asking the ECI to consider Aadhaar, voter and ration cards for the purpose of SIR-2025. "In addition to the legal concerns already articulated hereinabove, these documents are, in fact, already being considered by the Commission for the limited purpose of identity, during the SIR process," it said. Live Events The ECI continued, "A bare perusal of the enumeration form issued under the SIR Order reveals that the Aadhaar number may be voluntarily furnished by a person furnishing the enumeration form. Such information is utilised for the purpose of identification, in accordance with Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Section 9 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016." Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 stipulates the "electoral registration officer may for the purpose of establishing the identity of any person require that such person may furnish the Aadhaar number given by the Unique Identification Authority of India as per the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016". On the other hand, Section 9 of the 2016 Act says Aadhaar number is not evidence of citizenship or domicile, etc. The poll panel said each and every existing elector, other than migrants who are temporarily absent from Bihar, are provided with their pre-filled enumeration forms at their homes, by Booth Level Officers (BLO), in person. "That each and every existing elector has the same opportunity to provide all documents including proof of eligibility to the BLO at their place of residence. No elector is put through any hardship in comparison to the persons mentioned above. The same methodology has been utilised for all past SIRs as well. Moreover, the BLOs, BLAs (booth level agents), and volunteers are actively facilitating the obtaining of eligibility documents for all genuine electors who require assistance…," it said. The poll panel further informed the court that as on July 18, of the 7,89,69,844 existing electors in Bihar, enumeration forms from 7,11,72,660 electors, constituting 90.12 per cent, had already been collected. "Accounting for deceased individuals, permanently shifted electors, and those enrolled in more than one place, the Form collection phase of the SIR has effectively covered 94.68 per cent of the nearly 7.9 crore-strong electorate in Bihar. The electorate who are untraceable despite multiple visits by the BLOs constitute a mere 0.01% of the total electors. As on July 18, 2025, only 5.2 percent electors remain to submit their filled EFs before the July 25 deadline," it said.
United News of India
a day ago
- Politics
- United News of India
'We have power to seek proof of Citizenship during Bihar voter roll revision' : EC tells SC
New Delhi, Jul 22 (UNI) The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it has the statutory and constitutional authority to seek proof of citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. Defending its action in a counter-affidavit filed in the batch of petitions challenging the SIR process, the ECI rejected the argument that it was overstepping its jurisdiction by asking individuals to prove citizenship. It asserted that this obligation flows from Article 326 of the Constitution and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 'ECI is vested with the power to scrutinize whether a proposed elector fulfils the criteria for being registered as a voter in the electoral roll, which includes an assessment of citizenship as per Article 326,' stated the affidavit filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar. The ECI added that its powers flow directly from Articles 324 and 326 read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act, 1950. Highlighting Section 19, the Commission emphasised that citizenship is a key eligibility criterion for voter registration. It is thus obligated to verify this condition to ensure that no ineligible person is included and no eligible person excluded. The ECI rejected the contention that only the central government can adjudicate citizenship issues, clarifying that Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, vests exclusive jurisdiction with the Centre only for determining termination of citizenship upon voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. 'Other aspects related to citizenship can be inquired into by other relevant authorities for their purposes, including the ECI,' it stated. The affidavit further said that proof of citizenship lies within the special knowledge of the individual claiming to be an Indian citizen, and it is incumbent upon them to provide such evidence. Refuting the petitioners' argument that seeking such proof reverses the burden of proof, the Commission pointed out that under the electoral registration framework, applicants must establish their eligibility while submitting Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Regarding deletion of existing names from the electoral roll, the ECI clarified that such removal is done only after detailed inquiry and satisfaction of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) that a person is not qualified. 'Under the SIR exercise, the citizenship of an individual will not terminate on account of being held ineligible for registration in the electoral rolls,' the affidavit emphasised, adding that it is not adjudicating citizenship per se but merely ensuring that non-citizens do not get registered as voters. The matter is listed for hearing on July 28. During the last hearing on July 17, the Supreme Court had observed that determination of citizenship is the prerogative of the Union Government, not the ECI, and urged the Commission to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID and Ration cards in the Bihar SIR process. The ECI's counter affidavit was drawn by Advocates Eklavya Dwivedi, Sidhant Kumar, Prateek Kumar and Kumar Utsav. UNI SNG AAB
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
What is the legal status of right to vote?
The story so far: The Supreme Court is hearing cases filed against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. One of the questions that has arisen during this debate has been the legal status of the 'right to vote.' What are various rights? Before understanding the status of 'right to vote' in India, let us briefly understand the different types of rights. Natural rights are inherent and inalienable rights that are bestowed by nature on individuals. Right to life and liberty are considered to be natural rights. Indian courts may decide that a natural right is embodied in a fundamental right, but they do not directly enforce any natural right. Fundamental rights enumerated and guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution secure equality and liberty which are enshrined in our Preamble. The state is prohibited from making laws that violate these rights. They are directly enforceable in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Constitutional rights are contained in the Constitution but outside of Part III. These rights include right to property, free trade, and no taxation without the authority of law. These rights are operationalised through Union and State legislations aligning with the constitutional mandate. They are enforceable in a High Court under Article 226 or as per the legal process in the laws that operationalise them. Statutory or legal rights are provided and amended by ordinary laws of Parliament or State legislature. Examples include right to work under the MGNREG Act; rights of scheduled tribes under the Forest Rights Act; right to subsidised food grains under the National Food Security Act etc. These are enforceable as per the legal process in the laws that provide these rights. What does the Constitution say about universal adult franchise? Article 326 of the Constitution grants every citizen the right to vote, without any discrimination. It provides that every citizen, who is not less than 18 years of age on such date as may be fixed by law and is not otherwise disqualified under the Constitution or any law on certain grounds, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter. The laws enacted by Parliament in this regard are the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act, 1950) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951). Section 16 of the RP Act, 1950 disqualifies a non-citizen from being enrolled in the electoral roll. Section 19 of the same law requires that the person is not less than 18 years of age on the qualifying date and is 'ordinarily resident' in a constituency. Section 62 of the RP Act, 1951 provides the right to vote to every person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of a constituency. It further specifies that this right shall not be exercisable by a person who is disqualified under the RP Act, 1950 or is in prison. What have courts ruled? The legal status of the right to vote has been a subject matter of debate in various cases in our country. In the case (1952), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to vote is a statutory right and subject to limitations imposed by it. In the Jyoti Basu case (1982), the court reiterated that the right to vote is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right but a simple statutory right. Subsequently in many cases, the same ratio was followed and upheld by the court. In the PUCL case (2003), Justice P.V. Reddy observed that the right to vote, if not a fundamental right, is certainly a 'constitutional right.' However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Kuldip Nayar case (2006), again held that right to vote is only a statutory right. In the Raj Bala case (2015), a division bench of the Supreme Court, based on the ratio in the PUCL case, held that the right to vote is a constitutional right. However, in the Anoop Baranwal case (2023), the majority opinion, reiterated the judgment in the Kuldip Nayar case, that the right to vote is only a statutory right. Hence, the current legal status of the right to vote is that it is a statutory right. Justice Ajay Rastogi, in his partial dissent in Anoop Baranwal, noted that the right to vote is an expression of the choice of the citizen, which is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Right to vote is intrinsic to free and fair elections that is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Even if not considered a fundamental right, this right originates from Article 326 of the Constitution and is shaped by statutes made by Parliament. Considering these factors, the Supreme Court may consider elevating the status of right to vote into a constitutional right. Rangarajan. R is a former IAS officer and author of 'Courseware on Polity Simplified'. Views expressed are personal.
