Supreme Court grills EC over voters list revision, urges poll panel to allow Aadhaar card
The court has agreed to examine a batch of petitions challenging the timing and manner of the SIR, with the next hearing scheduled for July 28. The Election Commission has been granted time until July 21 to file its response. No interim order has been passed yet.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi questioned the poll panel's decision to initiate the revision just months before the elections, noting that the move 'goes to the root of democracy and the power to vote.'
"If you are to check citizenship under SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, then you should have acted early; it is a bit late,' said Justice Dhulia, pointing to the possible implications of revising voter rolls so close to the elections.
The Court, however, dismissed the contention of the petitioners - which include opposition leaders and civil society groups - that the ECI lacked the authority to conduct such a revision. The bench noted that revising the electoral roll is a constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission and emphasized that the last such exercise in Bihar was conducted in 2003.
During the hearing, the ECI defended the SIR, stating that it is essential to maintain the integrity of the electoral rolls by adding eligible voters and removing ineligible ones. The Commission reiterated that Aadhaar is not a valid proof of citizenship, asserting that only Indian citizens are entitled to vote as per Article 326 of the Constitution.
Senior counsel Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, questioned, 'If the Election Commission doesn't have the power to revise the electoral roll, then who does?'
He further assured the Court that no name would be deleted from the voter list without the individual being given an opportunity to be heard.
The bench also questioned the ECI's exclusion of Aadhaar from the SIR process, noting that matters of citizenship are under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission.
Over 10 petitions have been filed in the apex court challenging the ECI's decision, including one from the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms. High-profile petitioners include RJD MP Manoj Jha, TMC's Mahua Moitra, Congress' K C Venugopal, NCP (SP) leader Supriya Sule, CPI's D Raja, SP's Harinder Singh Malik, Shiv Sena (UBT)'s Arvind Sawant, JMM's Sarfraz Ahmed, and CPI (ML)'s Dipankar Bhattacharya.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Only Biharis will get to vote in Bihar, says BJP
BJP has said that Bihar residents need not be worried about reports of Bangladeshi, Myanmar and Nepali citizens in Bihar's voters' list found by the block level officers (BLOs). The party clarified that no outsider would be allowed to cast their vote in the upcoming assembly elections. "Rohingyas, Bangladeshis, Burmese and Nepalis have been found in the voters' list. Biharis will vote in Bihar to elect the next government. There is no need for the voters of Bihar to be afraid," BJP spokesperson Shahnawaz Hussain told ET. "No outsider can cast their vote in Bihar. Being a border state, Bihar has had infiltration problems for many years. The ECI is verifying it now." Hussain said the Opposition has been trying to spread the rumour that Muslim votes would be removed from the electoral rolls . "This is baseless. Valid voters need not be worried. BLOs are visiting every house and genuine voters should present their credentials as sought by ECI. The Opposition in Bihar knows they have lost the election before voting. Now, they are trying to find an excuse for their failures and blaming the EC," he added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Barefoot Shoes are Going Viral with Seniors - For Good Reason Barefoot Vitality Learn More Undo Meanwhile, the Opposition rebuffed the report questioning its authenticity. "Who are these sources? These are the same sources that said that Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore have been captured. SIR was conducted for the last time in 2003 under the UPA government. Since then, we have seen many elections. In those elections, we lost by three to four lakhs. Does that mean all these foreigners voted for PM Modi?" RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav said. "This means the NDA are at fault for any dubious elements' names getting added to the voters' lists. That means all the elections they have won have been a fraud. SIR is a complete eyewash. ECI is working as a cell of a political party." Live Events
The Hindu
31 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secularism — implicit from day one, explicit in 1976
'God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms…', said Friedrich Nietzsche. As many as 66 Constitutions make some reference to God in their Preamble. True, Nehru led from the front in India's adoption of secularism. He explicitly said in his autobiography of how what he called 'organized religion' filled him 'with horror... almost always it seemed to stand for a blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation'. Nehru's strong views on religion did play a significant role in India's choice of secular polity. Unlike today's politicians, he did not need religion to succeed in politics. Though the Supreme Court has said more than once that the term secular in India does not connote either strict separation between religion and state like in France or the non-establishment of religion like in the United States, the debate on the artificial imposition of secularism during the Emergency and the urgent need for its deletion continues though Indian secularism is rooted in Emperor Ashoka's Dhamma and is consistent with noble ideals of India's freedom struggle. Article 51A(b) makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen 'to cherish and uphold noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom'. Secularism was one such ideal. Secularism spells autonomy The advocates of Hindutva think that minorities have got some special privileges through secularism and that the time has come to bring an end to neutrality of the state in religious matters. Unfortunately, supporters of a theocratic state do not understand that secularism is basically good for religions as it protects religions from state domination and interference. Religions remain independent and autonomous under secularism. If a religion becomes state religion, the state takes over the control of such religion. Our secularism ensures autonomy of the Hindu religion and the proponents of Hindutva must understand this. Has not Islam been destroyed through various so-called Islamic states? Mahmud Ghazni and Illtutmish defied the caliph and assumed the title of king . Zawabit or state-made laws prevailed over Shariah during medieval India. Did not Henry VIII defy Papal authority just to marry Anne Boleyn and create the Anglican Church with the King as its head. In the consecration of the Ram temple in January 2024, the state's decision prevailed over the theological view of the Shankaracharyas. The state, not religion, decided what is auspicious. Is the salvation of souls really the mandate of a modern state? British Political theorist John Locke in his famous 'A Letter Concerning Toleration' (1689) forcefully said no because the state was brought into existence only for 'procuring, preserving, and advancing' citizens' civil interests. Care of souls, he argued, was not given to the state because the state consists of only outward force while religion consists of the inward persuasion of mind. Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, favoured separation of the church from the state to protect the garden of the church from the 'wilderness of secular order'. Secularism could triumph in the 18th century because reason triumphed over religions. While secularism is nothing but an idea of modernity, a non-secular theocratic state is the relic of the past. Even if we are fed up with modernity, the moot question is this: should we become a Saudi Arabia, an Iran or a Pakistan? An overwhelming majority of Hindus do not want to emulate these regressive countries. The importance of the Ashokan edicts Should we reject secularism because this term was not used in the original Constitution? To say that India's Constitution became secular in 1976 is a blatant lie. Like several other things borrowed from Ashoka the Great who ruled from 268-232 BC, the seeds of Indian secularism too can be traced back to Ashokan edicts. Rajeev Bhargava has written extensively on the significance of these edicts. Rejecting the idea of one particular religion as a state religion, Rock Edict 7 said that all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. One of the biggest problems of today's India is hate speech. Rock Edict 12 prohibited glorification of one's religion and condemnation of others' religions. Ashoka's dhamma was not religion but the principles of governance, i.e., constitutional morality and ethics that a king must follow. He favoured the acceptance and co-existence of different religions and went beyond mere toleration. The Motilal Nehru Committee's constitution (1928) which was the first attempt to draft the Constitution clearly stated in Clause 4(11) that 'there shall be no state religion for the Commonwealth of India or for any province in the Commonwealth, nor shall the state either directly or indirectly endow any religion or give any preference or impose any disability on account of religious belief or religious status'. The Karachi Resolution of the Congress in 1931 which presented the blueprint of a future Swaraj in Resolution no 2(9), specifically declared that the 'state shall maintain neutrality in regard to all religions'. Even the Hindu Mahasabha's draft constitution of 1944 with V.D. Savarkar's blessings too declared in explicit terms in Article 7(15) that 'there shall be no state religion or either centre or provinces.'. Why do we refuse to follow even Savarkar? On October 17, 1949 when the Preamble of the Constitution was under discussion in the Constituent Assembly, H.V. Kamath proposed that the Preamble should begin with the words 'in the name of God'. We should thank god that in an overwhelmingly religious country, god lost by 17 votes in a tally of 68 to 41. Similarly, the word 'secular' was not specifically included; yet, members, in one voice, spoke of it being a fait accompli of a liberal democratic constitution and consistent with the ideals of our freedom struggle. No member of the Constituent Assembly ever proposed a Hindu Rashtra including Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Three years prior to the insertion of the word secular, the Supreme Court had held secularism to be the basic structure in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Silences of the Constitution are equally important. For instance, the words federal, judicial review, rule of law too have not been used in the Constitution. But these ideas have rightly been held as part of the basic structure. On the jurisdiction model If we are really fed up with the separation model of secularism, we should consider the jurisdiction model. We have several options from modern democracies. Certainly, we may declare in the Constitution that Hinduism (not Hindutva) is the dominant spiritual heritage of India — just like in England where the Anglican Church is the official Church of England and the king is the defender of faith but recognises equal rights to all citizens ensuring freedom of religion and prohibiting all discriminations on the basis of religion. The Irish Constitution is another model. Its Preamble begins with the name of the Most Holy Trinity, but the state cannot endow any religion or discriminate on religious grounds. Article 3 of the Greek Constitution declares the Greek Orthodox Church as the dominant religion. The opening words of the Preamble are – 'In the name of Holy, Consubstantial and Undivided Trinity'. But Article 4 talks of the right to equality. Article 5(2) guarantees the right to life, liberty and honour without any discrimination based on religion and gives freedom of religion to all faiths. Muslims of Western Thrace in fact have the right to elect their own Mufti (religious and judicial officer) and their disputes are resolved in accordance with Islamic law. They have an option of either using civil courts or sharia courts. Article 2 of Pakistan's Constitution declares Islam as the state religion. Only a Muslim can occupy high constitutional office. But even the Preamble itself explicitly lays down that the 'adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess, practice freedom of religion and develop their culture'. Moreover Article 36 again says that the state shall safeguard the legitimate rights and the interests of minorities including their due representation in the federal and provincial services. Accordingly, the Constitution makes a provision of reservation for them. Though Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution falls short of declaring Buddhism as state religion, it does give 'Buddhism' the 'foremost place' and places an obligation on the state to protect and foster Buddha Sasna. Of course, it not only guarantees freedom of religion but (unlike India) in Article 10, explicitly gives 'freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice'. Minorities are governed by their personal laws and sharia courts function within the premises of regular courts and High Courts. Our secularism based on Ashoka's Dhamma was designed to allow people to live together in civility and promote equal respect for all religions. The state must remain religion neutral. India's opposition to Pakistan was based on the separation of religion and state. The framers of the Constitution too intended a secular state, and not a theocratic state. Even the Bharatiya Janata Party has been insisting on its opposition to the Congress's negative secularism and used to promise positive secularism. If what was implicit from day one was merely made explicit in 1976, 'Humgama Hai Ku barpa (what is the fuss about')? Faizan Mustafa is a Constitutional Law expert and presently serving as the Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, Bihar. The views expressed are personal
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Hindi or Marathi?'; RS-pick Nikam recalls sharing laugh with PM Modi
Mumbai: Advocate Ujjwal Nikam , special public prosecutor in the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blasts and other large terror trials, was on Saturday nominated to the Rajya Sabha as one of the four Presidential nominees. Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke the news to him on Saturday night around 9pm, said Nikam. "I received a call from PM Modi. He began by saying in Marathi, "Mi Marathit Bolu ka Hindi?' (should I speak in Marathi or Hindi?" I laughed a little but he laughed heartily," Nikam smiled while speaking to TOI on Sunday. "I told the PM that he was proficient in both languages and could speak in either, his choice. He spoke to me in Marathi and told me he was conveying the President's wishes to nominate me as Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament to serve the people. " Nikam recalled what the PM said. "President wants to assign a responsibility to you. Can you take on the responsibility? I said let me know what responsibility, to which he replied that the President has taken a decision to nominate you to the Rajya Sabha so you can use your power for the country and constitution. I readily said yes," Nikam relayed. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The PM on Sunday announced the nomination on social media. "Shri Ujjwal Nikam's devotion to the legal field and to our Constitution is exemplary. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Providers are furious: Internet access without a subscription! Techno Mag Learn More Undo He has not only been a successful lawyer but also been at the forefront of seeking justice in important cases. During his entire legal career, he has always worked to strengthen Constitutional values and ensure common citizens are always treated with dignity. It's gladdening that the President of India has nominated him to the Rajya Sabha. My best wishes for his Parliamentary innings." Nikam was awarded the Padma Shri in 2016 and was the BJP's candidate for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Mumbai North Central. He lost to Congress's Varsha Gaikwad. "I never felt bad losing the election and was reappointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in several leading cases," said Nikam, saying his dedication to public cause would now continue with the faith reposed in him by the President, PM, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis. He told TOI, "I will work towards upholding the constitutional provisions and strive to bring legal reforms which are needed as even CJI BR Gavai mentioned recently. I will see what changes are needed in extradition laws, since the process relies on our evidence and probe but laws of the other nation in appreciation of the evidence. Besides, Cesar's wife should be above suspicion, and I will work on proposing judicial reforms." Fadnavis said, "...Ujjwal Nikam ji a stalwart in the field of law, has contributed as a exemplary public prosecutor in several high-profile cases..." While ensuring to preserve citizen's faith in the judiciary, Nikam said, "When the various terror trials were on, we were able to get David Headley as witness and could expose Pakistan's role…."
