Uttarakhand HC stays dual voter list circular, affirms constitutional right to vote
While affirming that a person can only vote or contest elections from a single location, a division bench also underscored the constitutional right of every citizen to exercise their franchise.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mehra. The court's decision came amidst a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the ambiguity surrounding dual voter entries during the forthcoming Panchayat elections.
The SEC had initially circulated a directive to all District Magistrates, seeking clarification on whether individuals listed in both urban and rural voter rolls should be permitted to vote or contest.
However, the commission reportedly received no clear or positive response from the administration on this crucial query.
During Friday's hearing, the High Court put a stay on the SEC's circular, explicitly stating that it was not in favour of obstructing the ongoing election process.
The Election Commission, in its submission, explained that the circular was merely an attempt to seek opinions from District Magistrates on the applicability of rules for those with dual entries.
The SEC further clarified that Sub-section 13 of Section 9 of the Panchayati Raj Act mandates that a voter or candidate's name should appear in only one voter list.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court issues notice to Jharkhand HC over long-pending verdict after 10 convicts file petition
New Delhi/Ranchi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Jharkhand High Court while hearing a petition filed by 10 convicts, including six on death row, who alleged inordinate delay in the pronouncement of judgment on their appeals. The petitioners had approached the Jharkhand High Court between 2018 and 2019, challenging their convictions by a lower court. Despite the completion of hearings in 2022-23, the High Court has yet to deliver its verdict, which prompted the convicts to move apex court. Out of the 10 petitioners, six were sentenced to death and the remaining four to life imprisonment. Nine of them are currently lodged in Birsa Munda Central Jail in Hotwar, Ranchi, while one has recently been released on bail from Dumka jail. A bench comprising Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the judge who reserved judgment in all these appeals is the same in each case, raising questions about the prolonged delay. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Fauzia Shakil argued that withholding a verdict for years after hearings are concluded constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to speedy justice. Shakil highlighted the mental anguish faced by the convicts due to the delay, especially those awaiting execution. She cited the Supreme Court's ruling in HPA International vs Bhagwandas, where the court expressed concern over the practice of reserving judgments indefinitely. The petition also referred to the Jharkhand High Court Rules (2001), which mandate that judgments must be delivered within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments. Further, citing previous Supreme Court rulings related to sentence suspension, the advocate pointed out that convicts who have already served eight years of actual sentence are, in most cases, eligible for bail.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Protest Not Meant For Fun': Madras HC Declines NTK's Plea For Repeat Agitation At Same Venue
Last Updated: Justice B Pugalendhi observed, "Conducting protest is not meant for fun, and such protests cannot be conducted to the whims and fancies of the political parties". The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench recently upheld the decision of the Tamil Nadu police to deny permission to the political party Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) for conducting a second protest at the same venue within 5 days over the recent custodial death of temple guard Ajith Kumar. Court stressed that the right to protest is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of the general public and law and order concerns. Justice B Pugalendhi observed, 'Conducting protest is not meant for fun, and such protests cannot be conducted to the whims and fancies of the political parties". The judge stressed that the political parties have certain responsibilities towards the general public and that the right to protest is subject to reasonable restrictions. 'The issue also has to be approached from the point of view of the rights of the general public and those who are not associated with the protest. The right of protest should not infringe on the right of the general public," Justice Pugalendhi emphasised. He said that the right to protest does not include the right to cause inconvenience to the public. 'The sacrosanct right of protest cannot be used in a cavalier manner to cause persistent irritation or disharmony to the general public. The aspect of visual and auricular violation aggression against the general public should be kept in mind while such protests are carried out," he added. A plea was filed by J Eswaran, NTK's State Coordinator, challenging an order dated July 6, 2025, passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai. The order rejected NTK's request to hold a demonstration on July 8, citing multiple grounds, including an earlier protest on July 3 at the same site, the coinciding temple chariot festival that required full police deployment, and the weekly market at Thiruppuvanam which sees heavy footfall from nearby villages. Police also flagged the site's limitations that it sits along the state highway with capacity for only 200–300 people, lacks parking and crowd management infrastructure, and is close to sensitive areas such as schools and hospitals. On the other hand, NTK argued that they had been unfairly singled out, pointing out that their party leader, Seeman, had not been allowed to participate in the July 3 protest due to police objections, and that they were now seeking to protest again with his presence. However, police denied placing any such restriction and submitted that no mention of Seeman's participation was made in the original request. Justice Pugalendhi, after hearing both sides, held that while the right to protest is fundamental under Article 19(1), it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution. Court also took judicial note of serious allegations raised in the police counter-affidavit. During the July 3 protest, NTK members allegedly used 'filthy language," invoked communal rhetoric, and demeaned women, including references to the complainant in the custodial death case. However, the police admitted that no legal action had been taken against the individuals responsible. 'This court cannot find fault with the reasons assigned by the respondent police for rejecting the request," the judge observed stressing that no person can claim that he should be allowed to protest repeatedly at the same place without restrictions. Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application and directed the police to decide on it within 24 hours. view comments First Published: July 14, 2025, 17:33 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Calcutta HC to hear 2 cases on harassment of Bengali-speaking migrants in Odisha, Delhi simultaneously on July 16
The Calcutta High Court on Monday said that it would hear two separate cases on alleged harassment of Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal in two different states, together this week and not separately. One of the two cases is about the harassment of Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal in Odisha, and the second case is about similar harassment in Delhi. It was alleged that these Bengal-speaking migrant workers were harassed by the Odisha and Delhi governments after branding them as illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators. The Odisha-related matter came up for hearing at the Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra. The Division Bench decided that instead of hearing the Odisha-related matter separately the same would be heard simultaneously and together with the Delhi-related matter on July 16. On Monday, the petitioner in the Odisha-related matter informed the court that most of the workers who were detained in Odisha after being branded as illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators have returned to West Bengal. The petitioner also expressed hope that the complications related to the return of a few other migrant workers from West Bengal who are still in Odisha will be resolved soon. On July 11, the Division Bench of Justice Chakraborty and Justice Mitra directed the Union Home Ministry to submit a report to the court on allegations that some Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal residing in New Delhi have been recently deported to Bangladesh. The Division Bench also directed the West Bengal Chief Secretary Manoj Pant to contact his counterpart in the Delhi government and also get a report from the state government there on the same matter, which will also have to be submitted to the court. Incidentally, on July 16, the Trinamool Congress will be organising a mega rally in Kolkata to be led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee against the alleged harassment of Bengali-speaking migrant workers in states outside West Bengal, especially in BJP-ruled states. Besides the main rally in Kolkata, the state's ruling party would also organise similar protest rallies in all the districts.
