Vice President resigns: How will India's next VP be elected?
Presentation: Athira Madhav
Editing: Aniket Singh Chauhan
Video: Thamodharan B
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
44 minutes ago
- Business Standard
EC's refusal to accept Aadhaar as voter ID in Bihar is 'absurd': ADR
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission's (EC) claim of having constitutional powers to verify voters' citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls contradicts earlier court rulings. According to a report by The Indian Express, ADR also criticised the EC for excluding Aadhaar and ration cards as acceptable proof of identity, calling the move 'patently absurd,' especially as Aadhaar is widely used for passports, caste certificates, and permanent residency documents. 'Grave fraud' in rush to revise rolls The ADR, the petitioner in the matter, argued that the EC has not provided valid reasons for hurrying through the revision ahead of Bihar's Assembly polls. The group described the process as a 'grave fraud' on the state's electorate. The revision exercise, announced on June 24, has been controversial due to its timing and new requirement that voters registered after 2003 must provide several documents to stay on the electoral rolls. This has raised fears that many legitimate voters could be disenfranchised. ADR has submitted its response to the EC's affidavit, filed on July 21. In that affidavit, the EC claimed that Article 326 of the Constitution permits it to verify the citizenship of voters and clarified that being removed from the electoral roll does not mean loss of citizenship. The matter will be heard next on 28 July. Citizenship verification against court judgments? ADR argued that the EC's claim of authority to verify citizenship goes against earlier Supreme Court decisions. It cited Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), which stated that the burden of proving citizenship lies with new applicants, not existing voters. It also referenced Inderjit Barua vs ECI (1985), where the court held that being on the electoral roll is strong proof of citizenship, and the onus to disprove it lies with those who object. ADR criticised the EC's directive requiring voters added after 2003 to produce one of 11 specified documents, saying this wrongly shifts the burden of proof to voters. 'It is submitted that the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process,' ADR said. The group questioned why the existing legal procedures under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had to be replaced with a fresh set of documentation and a new form. ADR also said the EC had not provided any data showing foreign nationals or illegal migrants had been included in the electoral rolls. EC's Aadhaar rejection 'absurd' In its July 21 affidavit, the EC refused to accept the Supreme Court's suggestion to include Aadhaar, ration cards, and Voter ID as valid documents, arguing that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained using false papers. ADR countered that the EC's list of 11 acceptable documents is also open to fraud. It added, 'The fact that Aadhaar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI's rejection of Aadhar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd.' 'Violations' by officials ADR alleged that EC officials on the ground are not following the Commission's own rules. The June 24 guidelines required Block Level Officers (BLOs) to visit each home and provide two forms per voter. But ADR said many voters had not met any BLOs and had not signed any forms, yet their submissions were recorded online. 'Forms of even dead individuals have been reported to have been submitted,' it added. ADR also criticised the lack of a clear process for verifying these forms and documents, saying this gave Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) excessive powers that could lead to widespread disenfranchisement. Why target post-2003 voters? The EC's order says that the 2003 electoral roll is proof of citizenship for voters already registered. For those born after July 1, 1987, the EC asks for proof of citizenship from at least one parent. If the parent appears on the 2003 roll, the child may rely on that. ADR said this distinction was unfair and placed those registered after 2003 at 'a larger risk of disenfranchisement.' It also questioned why the EC had not submitted the 2003 revision order to the Court and asked for it to be produced. In contrast, during the 2004 revision exercise in the North East, only new voters had to submit documents, and that process took over six months (July 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005). In Bihar, the entire process is being compressed into three months -- from June 25 to September 30. 2025 roll already revised ADR also asked why a fresh revision is needed when the 2025 electoral roll was already updated and published in January this year. The group said the roll is regularly updated to account for deaths, migration, and other changes. ADR also highlighted an August 11, 2023 EC circular to state CEOs, directing them to delete names of electors who had died, moved, or were duplicates. The EC claimed the current SIR was being held in response to concerns raised by political parties. But ADR said, 'not a single political party had asked ECI for a de novo exercise such as the one prescribed in the instant SIR order'. Instead, parties had raised concerns about fake votes being added, genuine opposition voters being deleted, and irregular voting after polls had closed. Supreme Court's interim observations The case was first heard on July 10 by a vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. While the Court did not halt the process, it suggested the EC consider allowing Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents, in addition to the 11 listed. The EC was told to submit its affidavit by July 21, and the matter will be heard again on July 28. As of Friday, the EC said it had received forms from 72.3 million voters for inclusion in the draft roll. Around 6.5 million names are to be deleted due to death, permanent migration, duplicate entries, or because the voter was untraceable. Further deletions may occur after the draft roll is published. Between August 1 and September 1, those whose names are missing from the draft will be able to file claims and objections.
The Wire
2 hours ago
- The Wire
Bombay HC's Observations Smack of Political Bias in Line With Centre: CPI(M) on Gaza Protest Order
New Delhi: The politbureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has condemned strongly the Bombay high court's July 25 order on the party's petition challenging the Mumbai Police's refusal to grant permission for a protest in solidarity with Palestinians, In a controversial order, the bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad said, "You are looking at issues in Gaza and Palestine. Look at your own country. Be patriots. This is not patriotism." "Ironically, the bench appears to be unaware of either the provisions of the Constitution which enshrines the rights of a political party, or the history of our country and our people's solidarity with the Palestinians and their legitimate right to homeland. The observations smack of distinct political bias in line with the central government," the CPI(M) noted. The party's statement highlighted two observations by the court: 'You don't know the dust it could kick up. Getting on to the Palestine side or the Israel side. Why do you want to do this? It's obvious, going by the party you represent that you don't understand what this could do to the foreign affairs of the country.' and 'You are an organisation registered in India. If you could take up issues like garbage dumping, pollution, sewerage, flooding. We are just giving examples. You are not protesting on those but on something happening thousands of miles outside the country.' The party said that these observations overlook the fact that Mahatma Gandhi in the 40s of the last century, the national movement and subsequent foreign policy of independent India "had not flinched from supporting the cause of Palestinian people's right to freedom and homeland." "It also lays bare the fact that the bench does not realise the unequivocal condemnation globally against Israeli action and the stated positions of the UN bodies and the International Court of Justice," the party said. "We appeal to the freedom and democracy loving people of the country to join us in unambiguously rejecting such a reprehensible attitude," it finally said.
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
Cash Row: Amid Impeachment Move, SC To Hear Justice Varma's Plea On Monday
The hearing assumes as 145 MPs from both the ruling and Opposition parties on July 21 had submitted an impeachment notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking removal of Justice Varma. As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih will take up the matter for hearing on July 28. The writ petition filed by Justice Varma sought to quash the communication forwarded by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the President and then Prime Minister to take action. As per the petition, the in-house panel acted in a 'pre-determined manner' and denied Justice Varma a fair opportunity to defend himself. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court indicated that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai-led Bench will not likely take up Justice Varma's plea for hearing after senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned it for urgent listing. 'I think that it may not be proper for me to pick up that matter because I was part of the conversation,' said CJI Gavai but had assured Sibal that a Bench will be constituted to hear the matter. Justice Varma has been in the eye of a storm since the March 14 discovery of the burnt cash in an outhouse of his official residence allotted to him while serving in the Delhi High Court. Following the cash-discovery row, which sent shockwaves across the judicial corridors, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and an in-house probe was set up to probe the allegations. According to the probe committee, both direct and electronic evidence confirmed that the storeroom was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family. By way of strong inferential evidence, the in-house panel said the burnt cash was removed from the storeroom during the early hours of March 15. In conclusion, the three-member inquiry committee, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, CJ G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh HC and Karnataka HC's Justice Anu Sivaraman, found the allegations serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. It opined that Justice Varma's misconduct was not only proven but also grave enough to warrant his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
