JMM urges SC to declare SIR unconstitutional
Election Commission of India
for taking up SIR (Special Intensive Revision) in Bihar and has termed it as an ill-advised move. Speaking to media in Dharwad JMM chief and anti-graft activist SR Hiremath urged the
Supreme Court of India
to declare SIR as unconstitutional and uphold the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.
He stated that SIR violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, as it contravenes the provisions of the Representation of the People's Act, 1950, and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. If SIR is not set aside by the SC, it can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise crores of voters (as much as 30 to 50% of the country) from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of basic structure of the Constitution, Hiremath said.
"This would be totally against the bold experiment of Universal Franchise pledged by our Founding Fathers, who enshrined it in Constitution will be negated. It is important to identify and expose the powers that be, who have made the ECI do this 'retrograde' and 'dangerous move' of the ECI," he added.
Dropping land acquisition
The JMM, Citizens for Democracy (CFD) and NCPNR fully support the satyagraha of the 13 villages of Channapattana Hobli (Devanahalli Taluka, Bengaluru Rural Dist) 'Bhoo Swadheena Virodhi Horata' and call upon the state govt and the chief minister, who when in the opposition, had promised that, if voted to power, they would cancel the acquisition proceedings of the KIADB to acquire 1,777 acres of fertile lands of the farmers in 13 villages.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Why seniors are rushing to get this Internet box – here's why!
Techno Mag
Learn More
Undo
"Siddaramaiah reiterated his promise to the Samyukta Horata members during a meeting, that he would need additional time until July 15 to overcome legal hurdles and confirming the next meeting. The govt should quash the land acquisition process and protect the interests of the farmers by protecting their fertile lands", Hiremath demanded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
31 minutes ago
- The Wire
The Future of Queer Rights in India and Why the Judiciary Must Play Catalyst
This is the full text of the speech delivered by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Saturday, July 12, at the launch of a report and recommendations by the Keshav Suri Foundation and the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy titled 'Queering the Law: Beyond Supriyo' at The Lalit, Delhi. The document lists legal and policy solutions to help eliminate systemic discrimination, ensure recognition of queer relationships and families, and promote equal access to healthcare, safety education, and employment. The recommendations are based on legal research and community consultations across Delhi, Mumbai and Jaipur. § The Future of Queer Rights in India A very good evening to all gathered today! Mr Keshav Suri, Founder of the Keshav Suri Foundation (KSF), Dr. Jyotsna Suri, Chairperson and Managing Director, The Lalit Suri Hospitality Group, Senior Advocates Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Menaka Guruswamy and Ms. Arundhati Katju, Dr. Arghya Sengupta and other members from the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and other esteemed panellists. At the outset I extend my congratulations to the entire Vidhi team in coming out with the public policy brief on ' Queering the Law: Beyond Suprio' assiduously prepared jointly by Vidhi and Keshav Suri Foundation (KSF). Vidhi, of course, has been doing commendable work across topical issues and its detailed recommendations are invariably well received and acknowledged. The Future of Queer Rights, assumes even more significance, not only because of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Supriyo, but also because it really is an issue that must be discussed with legislative reforms at the heart of such discussion coupled with a need for advocating change in societal perception. As I had opined in Supriyo, our Constitution contemplates a holistic understanding of equality, which applies to all spheres of life. The practice of equality necessitates acceptance and protection of individual choices. This endeavour not only requires judicial interpretation of existing statutes but also an attempt on the part of the legislature to consolidate and make necessary amendments to laws that remain archaic and rooted in a biased assignment of rights. The future of Queer Rights in India, as the Supreme Court had opined in Supriyo requires action in the realm of the legislature and the executive with a co-ordinated effort across various ministries and department. This is so because redressal is to take place across various aspects. Amendment to only civil laws relating to marriage, parenthood and inheritance and making them more inclusive would in my view be only the first step albeit significant. What is required perhaps is also a legislation on civil union. Vidhi, last year, had published what I believe to be a more contemporary rendition of a comprehensive Family Code. This could definitely form the basis of a framework to aid public deliberations on family laws in India. Cue may also be taken by the legislature while framing laws relating to civil union from those already enacted in foreign jurisdictions. For instance, the UK Civil Partnership Act which defines and provides for registration of civil unions or the Australian Family Law Act which states that two persons are in a relationship, if they are not married, not related to each other by family but have been in a relation with each other on a domestic basis. Vidhi's recommendations to the Committee constituted following the decision in Supriyo extensively cover these facets. Protection must also be afforded to such unions which are not ultimately registered but a relationship exists between two persons which could characterised as a civil union. Yet another hurdle to be crossed and surely an important consideration for any couple, would be parent-child relations and the law on this subject. Presently, parent-child relations are determined under an array of statutes – CARA Regulations for adoptions, Guardianship and Wards Act, Juvenile Justice Act, Surrogacy Act. Unfortunately, these legislations deem couples to mean only heterosexual couples. Reformation, amendment or introduction of new legislation is warranted here too. Gender-based discrimination and even bias against single parents must be written out of the statutes. In fact, in Supriyo, the minority view had noted that CARA regulations to the extent that unmarried couples could not adopt a child would disproportionately effect non-heterosexual couples since the State had not conferred legal recognition to the union of queer couples. Both the minority and majority, however, recognised that this area of the law required state intervention. A closely connected aspect would also be whether extant provisions which do not accord legitimacy to children of married couples as opposed to unmarried couples which, of course, would include non-heterosexual couples. There is a need for reworking this statutory scheme and move in-step with societal reality of the 21st century. An almost existential difficulty faced by LGBTQIA persons is access to goods, financial services and access to public infrastructure. In this regard, in my opinion in Supriyo, I had underscored the need for an umbrella anti-discrimination law, noting that: "There are several laws that have an anti-discrimination aspect to them. However, they are fragmented and may fail to capture the multitudinous forms of discrimination. Another compelling reason for a law that places a horizontal duty of anti-discrimination is provided by the spirit of Article 15, which prohibits discrimination by both the State and private actors." Furthermore, while anti-discrimination law do exist, they require courts to be: "...'sentinel on the qui vive', the only method to enforce this Constitutional right under Article 15 would be through its writ jurisdiction. There are significant challenges for marginalized communities to access this remedy. Therefore, the proliferation of remedies through an anti-discrimination statute can be a fitting solution. Such legislation would also be in furtherance of the positive duty of the State to secure social order and to promote justice and social welfare under Article 38 of the Constitution." Anti-discrimination law is ever more crucial in today's age where access to capital is sine qua non for say starting a business, buying a house or even otherwise bridging personal needs is wholly dependent on factors such as ease of availing loans or finances, opening bank accounts. Undoubtedly, there are barriers to access for LGBTQIA persons to even something as routine as opening a bank account which requires one to carry a document which conforms to gender identity. There is also a more deep-rooted societal bias, which compound inaccessibility to the financial system which is normally available to cis-gender or heteronormative individuals. This is naturally a significant handicap to the LGBTQIA community. On the whole, In my view, the future beckons a sanguine and more inclusive reality which requires a more concerted effort not only on the part of the judiciary and legislature but also the more pressing and urgent need for societal reformation. Dishearteningly, there still persists a stigma and sense of rejection for LGBTQIA persons, in particular, non-binary and transgender individuals. There is also, a degree of legislative inertia on the rights and entitlements of queer persons which risks prolonging the legal limbo for same-sex couples seeking marriage, adoption, or inheritance rights. A conservative attitude still persists across a large populace of the country which hinders acceptance. The Supriyo judgment is a nuanced milestone in India's queer rights journey. It affirms cohabitation and non-discrimination rights for LGBTQ individuals but defers to parliamentary wisdom. The minority's push for civil unions offers a potential middle ground, while the court's directives for a government committee signal incremental progress a chasm is required to be crossed which would only be successful through tempered judicial intervention, legislative progress and most importantly growing societal awareness. I believe, we are on a path of progressive recognition of rights of LGBTQIA persons. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India recognized transgender individuals' right to self-identify their gender. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 codifies identification of gender but has several lacunae to be filled by the legislature. Societal perception plays a key role. A 2019 Pew survey found 37% of Indians supported homosexuality, up from 15% in 2013. Urban areas and younger generations show greater openness, but rural and conservative communities often remain hostile. The judiciary must perform the role of a catalyst. India's legislative landscape for LGBTQIA recognition has evolved, but significant gaps persist. The term 'queer' is not defined in Indian law, and asexual individuals are invisible in policy frameworks. In February 2025, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment introduced certain administrative measures for queer couples, including access to ration cards, joint bank accounts, and the right to claim a partner's body in case of death (if no next of kin exists). These measures, prompted by the Supreme Court's Judgement in Supriyo are a step forward but remain limited, as they are not enshrined in statute and do not address comprehensive rights. I truly believe that the future is more promising than what is behind us and in the words of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, 'Hope will never be silent'. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul retired as a Supreme Court judge in 2023.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Anti-sacrilege bill likely to tabled in Punjab Assembly
The draft bill may propose life imprisonment for sacrilege acts against religious scriptures, sources said. Ahead of the third day of the special session of the state assembly, a cabinet meeting was held here in which the anti-sacrilege bill was given nod by the council of ministers, the sources said. Chandigarh, Jul 14 (PTI) A draft bill seeking stricter punishment for acts of sacrilege is likely to be introduced in the Punjab Assembly on Monday, sources said. There may also be a provision for setting up special courts to deal with cases pertaining to desecration of scriptures. There will be no parole for those guilty of sacrilege acts, they further said. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann had earlier said the state government would seek the opinion of all stakeholders and religious bodies for the proposed legislation, indicating it would not be enacted immediately. 'We are drafting it. A law is going to be enacted. But for this, we will talk to stakeholders, religious organisations. We will present the draft legislation (in the assembly). 'But for the final draft, we will require time. After presenting it in the Vidhan Sabha, we will seek public opinion,' he had said. 'We will speak to religious bodies about how the law should be. We will take the (draft) bill to the public to seek their opinion for any amendments,' he had then said. Mann had said the government would consult leading legal experts to ensure that a robust state legislation is enacted – one that prevents offenders from evading strict consequences, including the possibility of capital punishment for such heinous crimes. Reaffirming his government's commitment to justice, Mann had stated that every person involved in these sacrilegious acts, either directly or indirectly, would face exemplary punishment. Mann had highlighted that while the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provides clear provisions regarding religious places, it remains silent on holy 'granths'. He had also said that as the subject falls under the concurrent list, the state has the authority to enact such legislation, and legal opinions would be sought accordingly. It is not the first time that a law was being brought in the state for stricter punishment for perpetrators of sacrilege acts. In 2016, the then SAD-BJP government brought in the IPC (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2016 and CrPC (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2016 recommending life sentence for sacrilege acts against Guru Granth Sahib. The Centre later returned the bill, saying all religions should be treated equally given the secular nature of the Constitution. In 2018, the Amarinder Singh government had passed two bills –the Indian Penal Code (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2018′, and 'the Code of Criminal Procedure (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2018', which stipulated a punishment of up to life imprisonment for injury, damage or sacrilege to Guru Granth Sahib, Bhagavad Gita, Quran and the Bible. However, the two Bills did not get the President's assent. Acts of sacrilege against religious scriptures has been an emotive issue in Punjab and there has been a demand from various quarters for stringent punishment for the acts of sacrilege against religious texts. The incident related to the theft of a 'bir' (copy) of Guru Ganth Sahib from Burj Jawahar Singh Wala gurdwara, putting up handwritten sacrilegious posters in Bargari and Burj Jawahar Singh Wala and torn pages of the holy book found scattered at Bargari, had taken place in Bargari in Faridkot in 2015. These incidents had led to anti-sacrilege protests in Faridkot. In the police firing at anti-sacrilege protesters in October 2015, two persons were killed in Behbal Kalan while some persons were injured at Kotkapura in Faridkot. PTI CHS VSD DV DV This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
No legal, valid ‘citizenship' document that's issued—how it puts big question mark on ECI's Bihar exercise
The special intensive revision in Bihar involves an indicative list of 11 documents provided by the ECI to be submitted by eligible voters. Several petitioners before the Supreme Court have objected to the non-inclusion of documents like Aadhaar and voter ID in the list of acceptable documents. The last such intensive revision was carried out in the state in 2003. In its order directing the revision last month, the ECI had cited Article 326 of the Constitution, according to which elections to the Lok Sabha and legislative assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. This provision says, 'Every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age…shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.' New Delhi: The Election Commission of India's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar has raised several questions over the scope of the exercise, and the impact that it may have on the citizens' right to vote. While the petitions challenging the ECI's revision were being heard by the apex court Thursday, the poll body asserted that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as a proof of citizenship. Courts have, in the past, also ruled the same with respect to Aadhaar. So, is there a specific document issued under Citizenship Act, 1955, specifically certifying Indian citizenship? Experts say there isn't. Former election commissioner Ashok Lavasa told ThePrint that there is no clear document issued under the Citizenship Act, certifying that a person is a citizen. This means that while there are documents like the passport, which may serve as proof of a person being an Indian citizen, there isn't a document certifying such citizenship exclusively under the 1955 law. A lawyer familiar with the petitions challenging the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar explained, 'All the documents that they are asking for are going to show only the date and place of birth. Through that, you may extrapolate and say—okay, you're a citizen. But none of the documents, except the passport, is proof of citizenship. None of the others are indicative of citizenship at all.' The lawyer further told ThePrint that there is no document in India, which is a proof of citizenship per se, like a national citizenship card. 'The only document which is proof of citizenship in that sense is the passport, and the proof of citizenship in passport is ancillary to its main purpose, which is that it is a travel document for an Indian citizenship. And because it is such a travel document only for Indian citizens, it is considered a proof of citizenship, but it is not per se a proof only of citizenship.' Also Read: SC invokes 'document starvation' to suggest EC accept Aadhaar for special roll revision in Bihar What is a 'citizenship' proof? Citizenship in India is determined by the Citizenship Act, 1955, which lists down different methods of acquiring Indian citizenship—by birth, by descent, by registration, and by naturalisation. While citizenship by descent is for a person born outside India, citizenship by registration is for people including those of Indian origin, or those married to an Indian citizen. Citizenship by naturalisation is for foreigners. 'There is nothing called a 'citizenship certificate' for those who are citizens of India since the commencement of the Constitution or their descendants. There is also no stand-alone document for Indian citizens to prove their citizenship,' Guwahati-based lawyer Aman Wadud, who has worked on citizenship cases, told ThePrint. 'The group of people who have 'citizenship certificate' are those who get Indian citizenship by naturalisation, by registration, by descent, and those who have been granted citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.' The 1955 Act talks about such a certificate only in cases of citizenship by descent, naturalisation and registration. As for the documents required, the Citizenship Rules, 2009 only talk about specific applications for registration under Sections 4 (descent), 5 (registration) and 6 (naturalisation). No such specific application is required to be submitted in case of citizenship by birth. 'Not citizenship, only identity' That most of the documents on the list provided by the ECI may not be proof of citizenship was highlighted by the Supreme Court Thursday as well. In case of Bihar, the 11 acceptable documents listed by the ECI are birth certificate, passport, matriculation certification, permanent residence certificate issued by a state authority, forest rights certificate, caste certificate, National Register of Citizens or NRC (wherever it exists), family register prepared by state/local authorities, any land/house allotment certificate by the government, any identity card or pension payment order issued to a regular employee or pensioner of central government/state government/PSU, or any such identity card/certificate/document issued by the government/local authorities/banks/post office/LIC/PSUs prior to 1 July, 1987. During the hearing, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, assured the court that the only purpose behind the exercise was to ensure that everyone who was eligible is on the electoral roll, and that it was looking at the aspects of citizenship and age. However, the court immediately pointed out, 'All the documents you have listed are related to identity.' Justice Joymalya Bagchi was quoted as saying, 'Why citizenship? Only identity. None of these illustrative documents that you listed or by themselves proof of citizenship.' This is why the petitioners have challenged the selection of documents by the ECI, alleging that the exercise is 'arbitrary, because the inclusions and the potential exclusion of documents do not make sense from the perspective of what they claim they are trying to do, that is to authenticate citizenship', the lawyer quoted earlier asserted, speaking to ThePrint. The Aadhaar dichotomy There seems to be a dichotomy between the ECI's resistance towards accepting Aadhaar for the revision in Bihar, and its past actions. ECI's manual on electoral rolls issued in March 2023 mentions the Aadhaar as an acceptable document to be attached with Form 6, the official application form used for new voter registration, or for those voters who may be shifting their residence from one constituency to another. It says that Aadhaar may be furnished, both as proof of age and proof of ordinary residence. Back in 2015, the commission had launched a nationwide comprehensive programme, National Electoral Roll Purification and Authentication Programme (NERPAP) with an objective of bringing an 'error-free and authenticated electoral roll' by linking EPIC (Electoral Photo Identity Card) data of electors with Aadhaar number, mobile number and e-mail. However, on 11 August that year, the Supreme Court passed an interim order in the petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme, asserting that the production of an Aadhaar card would not be mandatory for obtaining any benefits, and that it would not be used for any purpose other than the PDS and LPG distribution schemes. Post this order, the poll body had halted its Aadhaar programme, directing its Electoral Officers to suspend all activities to collect and feed Aadhaar numbers of voters. 'Henceforth, no more collection of Aadhaar numbers from electors or feeding/seeding of collected Aadhaar data shall be done by any election authority or official connected with NERPAP,' the commission's directive had reportedly read. In 2021, on the ECI's recommendation, the government had amended the Representation of People Act, 1950, introducing a new form 6B to collect Aadhaar numbers from existing electors on voluntary basis for authentication of his entries in the electoral roll. Also Read: Congress, TMC oppose EC's 'special intensive revision' of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar What is ECI's mandate? The revision exercise in Bihar has triggered concerns over the commission indirectly entering the domain of determining citizenship of citizens through the revision of voter rolls. During the latest hearing in the top court in the case, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Kumar Jha, asserted that it is only the Government of India that can contest a person's citizenship, and not a 'small officer of the EC'. 'The Supreme Court has said in many cases that it is not the remit of the Election Commission to go into the citizenship aspect. That is creating a little problem here,' Former Lok Sabha secretary general and Constitutional expert P.D.T. Achary told ThePrint. 'The job of preparing or revising the voters list is with the ECI. When the ECI is preparing the list, the question is whether they have the power to go into the question of citizenship. How will they decide whether a person is a citizen of India or not? What are the guidelines or the documents which the ECI can ask for, that is not clear at all.' Achary pointed out that the Representation of Peoples Act does not deal with this aspect at all. 'That means, the Election Commission does not have the remit to decide this question, because it can only be decided by the Home Ministry, which administers the Citizenship Act,' he said. 'ECI is thinking about this only because Article 326 stipulates citizenship as one of the conditions of eligibility, and its question is genuine. But I don't know why they are thinking about it now, when all these years they have not been doing it. There is a presumption that a person is a citizen.' The inclusions and exclusions The 1995 Citizenship Act is administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is tasked with framing the rules under the law and overseeing its implementation. During the hearing Thursday, when advocate Dwivedi asserted that Aadhaar isn't proof of citizenship, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia shot back saying, 'But citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the MHA.' Former EC Lavasa also points out that it is the MHA which is tasked with determining citizenship under the 1955 law. 'Every Act has its own administrative mechanism. That administrative mechanism is supposed to carry out the functions that it is responsible for,' he told ThePrint. Apart from exclusion of Aadhaar, Achary is also troubled by the fact that the commission isn't accepting voter ID cards as well. 'That is a very strange position to take, that you have given the voter identity card, which is given to a person who is enrolled as a voter, and that voter's list was prepared under the law and the Constitution. What question remains after that? What is the value of this document?' he remarked. Besides, the petitions filed by the top court point to several issues that emerge from each of the 11 documents. For instance, Rajya Sabha MP Jha's petition cites various government surveys and data to highlight that a negligible part of Bihar's population holds several of these documents, including birth certificate, passport, permanent residence certificate, and identity card/pension payment order issued to regular government employees. It also points out that at least two in this list—NRC and family register—do not apply to Bihar. How have revisions been done before? Intensive revisions have taken place ever since the first general elections in the country. For instance, the preparation of first electoral rolls began in 1947, well before the 1950 Act, or the establishment of the ECI. However, it was noticed that in the rolls used for the first elections, several names of women electors had to be deleted because they were enrolled as 'mother of' or 'wife of', instead of their proper names. To fix this, after the first election in 1952, the ECI had directed revision of electoral rolls in 1/5th of each state annually from 1952 to 1956 to finish the exercise before the Lok Sabha polls in 1957, and 1/3rd of each state annually from 1957 to 1961 to complete the exercise before the 1962 polls. Post this, the commission had said that summary revisions should be sufficient in 1962 and 1964, while intensive revision was conducted once again in 1965 in 40 percent of the country, and in 1966 in the remaining 60 percent areas. Lavasa explained that the approach in earlier intensive revision exercises was 'very simple'. 'In case of intensive revision, it was done as a fresh exercise. During house-to-house verification, the head of the family gave the names of the people who lived in the same house. The ERO would then put out a draft roll, and the expectation was that if a person had given false information, somebody would object to it,' he said. In the normal course also, if someone objects to a person's eligibility as a voter, it is on the objector to prove the claim that a voter is not eligible, unlike the current exercise in Bihar, where the burden of proof of citizenship has been placed on the already-enrolled voters. However, Lavasa asserted, the old 2003 order directing intensive revision should be made available to check how that exercise had been undertaken. 'Till that notification is available, it is difficult to say with certainty how it was done in 2003.' (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: 'Arbitrary, to be replicated in Bengal.' What pleas by ADR, Mahua challenging EC's Bihar exercise say
