Draft ward structure released for Nagpur ZP elections
The draft, published on July 14, outlines revised constituency boundaries under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961. Compared to the previous election, the total number of seats was reduced by one. The ward division is based on the last census data.
Residents and stakeholders can submit written objections or suggestions to the collector until July 21. Proposals based on the objections may be sent to the divisional commissioner by July 28.
The divisional commissioner is required to conduct hearings and announce a decision by August 11, while the final ward structure will be submitted to the Election Commission by August 18.
Seat reservations will be be declared only after the ward structure is finalised. Once all objections are resolved and approvals secured, the election schedule will be announced — polls are likely to be held in October or November 2025. Rural political activity has picked up pace in anticipation of the elections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
In custody battle, SC asks police to trace and hand over child to Indian father, orders seizure of Russian mother's passport
Intervening in a custody battle for a five-year-old between the child's Russian mother and Indian father, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed authorities to trace the minor, hand over the child to the man, and ensure that the woman does not leave India. The man claimed the child and mother were not traceable after July 7. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which took a grim view of the matter, directed 'Delhi police authorities, including the Commissioner, to trace the minor child without any loss of time and hand over the unconditional custody of the child to the father' and asked the 'Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs to issue look-out notices and ensure that the (Russian) mother is not permitted to leave the country'. The court also ordered that the Russian mother's passport be seized forthwith and directed 'officers of MEA to talk to officials in Russian embassy to seek permission to enter into residence of the diplomat who was lastly seen in the company of the mother'. It was the mother who approached the court over the dispute and orders were passed in the matter from time to time. The duo had been living in Delhi separately on the court's orders, with both taking care of the child. On May 22, the court gave the father exclusive custody of the child for four days a week, while the mother will have custody for the remaining three days. This month, the father approached the Supreme Court complaining that the child and the woman were missing. He also claimed that she was seen entering the Russian embassy in Delhi with a diplomat. His counsel told the bench that 'the Russian mother and the child have vanished into wilderness'. Justice Surya Kant asked the woman's counsel about her whereabouts, but they said they were unaware. The bench apparently did not seem to agree, with Justice Kant remarking, 'You people know everything…you think you can play mischief with us? We will take counsel also to task, not only the petitioner! You wait for the orders we will pass at the appropriate time.'
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid': Bombay HC dismisses challenge to validity of law
The Bombay High Court Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the offence of sedition. The high court passed the judgement on the 2021 plea by Anil Baburao Baile, who was issued notice in 2020 in connection with the Elgaar Parishad case. Through advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Nikhil Kamble and Hitendra Gandhi, Baile sought a declaration that the UAPA and Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional. In his plea, Baile also sought the setting aside of the July 10, 2020, notice issued to him by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 'The UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid, therefore, the challenge to its vires fails, and the petition is dismissed,' a bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Neela K Gokhale pronounced. 'Mr Ambedkar, you made us think (while deciding this plea),' Justice Gadkari orally remarked. In his plea, Baile also claimed that the UAPA granted 'unbridled power' to the executive to declare an organisation or an individual and their activity unlawful without defining the same in the law. He added that the amendment made in the UAPA to adopt the United Nations Security Council's 2001 resolution, which was for criminalising any person supporting international terrorism, made it possible for the government to declare an Indian citizen or an organisation as a terrorist. 'Nowhere does the Constitution authorise a blanket power to the executive in deciding and Parliament cannot be granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful,' the plea argued. The Central government and NIA opposed the plea, and submitted that various pleas were pending before the high court and the Supreme Court, taking exception to the validity of the UAPA. They also referred to the pending challenge to the constitutional validity of the sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC before the Supreme Court. The detailed verdict will be made available in due course.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Anti-terror law UAPA constitutionally valid, has President's assent: High Court
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the stringent anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Upholding the law's validity, the division bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale said the petition failed in its plea was filed by Anil Baburao Baile, who was issued a notice in 2020 in connection with the Elgaar Parishad case, and who claimed that the anti-terror law and the now-repealed sedition law were After he was sent a notice, Baile moved the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of the UAPA. In February, the top court directed the High Courts to proceed with pleas challenging the various provisions of the anti-terror law.- Ends
