SC dismisses plea for delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh,Telangana
Supreme Court
on Friday dismissed a plea for conducting
delimitation exercise
in
Andhra Pradesh
and
Telangana
for increasing the
assembly seats
in both the states.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the contention of alleged discrimination against the two states, saying provisions dealing with delimitation in states were different when compared to UTs.
It held that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the delimitation notification issued for the
Union Territory of Jammu
and Kashmir was not arbitrary or discriminatory and hence constitutional.
The top court dismissed the plea filed by K Purushottam Reddy who sought directions to the Centre to operationalise Section 26 of the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act
which deals with delimitation of the assembly constituencies in both the states.
Reddy has contended that delimiting the assembly and parliamentary constituencies of only the newly minted Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, with the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, created an unreasonable classification and was, therefore, unconstitutional.
Live Events
The top court said section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014 was subject to
Article 170
of the Constitution and as per which delimitation exercise can be held only after the first census conducted after 2026.
The top court said allowing the plea for fresh delimitation exercise will open the floodgates of litigation from other states seeking conduct of such exercise.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
40 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Supreme Court refuses to stay publication of draft electoral rolls in Bihar
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the publication of draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, but directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to continue accepting Aadhaar and voter identity cards as valid identity proofs for the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state, stating that they have 'some sanctity'. 'As far as ration cards are concerned, we can say they can be forged easily, but Aadhaar and voter cards have some sanctity and have a presumption of genuineness. You continue accepting these documents,' the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, urged the court not to allow finalisation of the electoral rolls in the interim. The bench, however, noted that the petitioners had not sought interim relief during the last hearing and, therefore, it could not be granted now. The court said it would take a final decision after hearing all parties in the case on Tuesday. The ECI can deal with cases of forgery on a case-to-case basis, as any document can be forged, the two-judge bench remarked. On 10 July, the court had told the ECI to consider Aadhaar cards, voter identity cards, and ration cards as acceptable documents for the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the Assembly election. It also clarified that this direction does not imply that the ECI must include a person's name in the roll solely on the basis of these documents. 'We have noted that, anyway, you have said your list is not exhaustive. If you have a good reason to discard Aadhaar, you do it, give reasons,' the court said. In a counter-affidavit, the ECI had stated that Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards cannot be considered as proof of voter eligibility under the ongoing exercise for electoral roll revision in Bihar. The commission said the three documents do not meet the required standards for verifying eligibility during the process. The court is hearing pleas challenging the ECI's 24 June directive ordering a special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. The directive mandates that voters not listed in the 2003 electoral roll submit documents proving their citizenship. Those born after December 2004 must also furnish the citizenship documents of both parents, with additional requirements if a parent is a foreign national. On Monday, the court also observed that the petitions raised 'an important question which goes to the very root of the functioning of democracy in the country — the right to vote'.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
40 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Why wait until now to challenge inquiry in cash row: SC to Justice Varma
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma why he had waited until now to challenge the procedure adopted after half-burnt Indian currency notes were discovered in an outhouse of his residential premises. 'Did you take a chance of a favourable finding? You are a constitutional authority. You cannot say, 'I don't know',' the judges told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Varma. Varma, who was a judge of the Delhi High Court when the cash was found, told the court that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation, based on a three-judge enquiry report, cannot form the basis for his removal. He also contended that a sitting judge's conduct cannot be part of public discourse before the legislative process begins—a constitutional mandate that was defied in his case. CJI Khanna had set up the three-member committee following the discovery of the cash at Justice Varma's official residence. The fact-finding committee was constituted under the in-house inquiry procedure to assist the CJI in acting on complaints against High Court or Supreme Court judges. The three-member panel, in its report, said the cash found at Justice Varma's residence was unaccounted for and that he was unable to explain its source—grounds that justified impeachment. This led CJI Khanna to advise Justice Varma to resign, which he refused to do. The CJI then forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister for further action. 'The entire case has become political,' Sibal told the court on Monday, adding that Justice Varma, a sitting judge, had been declared guilty even before the commencement of statutory proceedings—under which only Parliament can remove a sitting judge. During the hearing, the bench also asked Sibal why he believed that former CJI Khanna's decision to forward the report to the President and Prime Minister was not constitutionally valid. Sibal argued that the CJI, under the in-house procedure, was not authorised to recommend a judge's removal. The court reasoned: 'The President is the appointing authority and, therefore, the matter was placed before it (the President's office). Since the President acts as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and the Prime Minister is the leader of the Council of Ministers, forwarding to the Prime Minister is also not problematic.' The court also said that the former CJI's approach did not imply he was 'trying to persuade the House (Parliament) to act based on his recommendation.' Sibal, however, clarified that Justice Varma had not moved against the judgment but was aggrieved by how the entire investigation had unfolded. The bench then fixed Wednesday to hear the case again and asked Justice Varma to place the three-member in-house enquiry panel report on record for its perusal.
Hans India
40 minutes ago
- Hans India
‘People have right to protect votes': Congress on SC's verdict on Bihar draft electoral rolls
The Congress party on Monday reacted to the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the publication of draft electoral rolls in Bihar, asserting that while the top court may have declined to halt the process, citizens still have the right to ensure that elections remain free from vote theft and fraud. Speaking to IANS, Bihar Congress President Rajesh Kumar said, "It would not be appropriate for us to comment directly on the decision of the Supreme Court. But the way the Election Commission is working is quite disappointing. The number of voters whose names have been deleted has crossed 65 lakhs, yet the Election Commission has not changed its approach. They claim to be removing fake voters added through fraudulent means, but the current process itself appears dubious." Congress spokesperson Abhay Dubey echoed these concerns, stating, "The Supreme Court had directed that Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards, and ration cards should be considered for voter verification. But the Election Commission has not complied with this. It's vote theft. The EC has deleted the names of 65 lakh voters without proper verification. They did not conduct any door-to-door campaign to collect data. It's a bogus process." Congress Bihar in-charge Krishna Allavaru said, "The Supreme Court refused to stay draft electoral rolls publication, but people have the right to ensure there is no vote theft and no election fraud. The INDIA Bloc's struggle will continue. The SIR is a scam – a voter theft scam – and the Election Commission is directly responsible for it." Meanwhile, the BJP defended the Election Commission's actions. Bihar BJP President Dilip Jaiswal said, 'The Supreme Court has already stated that there should be no violation of anyone's voting rights. Not a single voter has publicly protested so far. The Election Commission is only removing voters who are either deceased or registered in multiple locations. They are also removing voters who no longer exist. Protesting against the SIR process, which is still underway, is not good.' DMK MP Tiruchi N. Siva, however, warned that what is happening in Bihar could soon spread elsewhere. 'It is being reported that nearly one crore voters may have been deprived of their rights. In the name of SIR, the Election Commission is carrying out actions, and the government is merely watching. Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy. We want a debate on this. The government is accountable and should clarify these issues instead of avoiding them,' he told IANS. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant an interim stay on the publication of the draft electoral rolls in Bihar, prepared following a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) ordered by the Election Commission. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that since the petitioners had not sought interim relief during the initial hearing, it could not be granted at this stage. The bench stated the matter would be interpreted definitively at a later hearing. Due to a lack of time, the bench adjourned the hearing, scheduling the final arguments for July 29. During the brief hearing, the apex court emphasised that Aadhaar and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) should be used as valid documents for voter verification. When senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, raised concerns about the authenticity of certain documents - particularly ration cards - the court noted, "Ration cards can be forged easily. But Aadhaar and voter ID cards carry a presumption of genuineness and sanctity. You proceed with these two documents. Where forgery is suspected, deal with it on a case-by-case basis." Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the ECI's June 26 directive ordering the Special Intensive Revision. The petitioners argue that, if not reversed, the directive could arbitrarily disenfranchise lakhs of voters and undermine free and fair elections - cornerstones of India's democracy.
