Ex-CJIs on 'One Nation, One Election' bill: Can EC have unbridled power?
NEW DELHI: Even as they expressed the view that the bill on simultaneous elections passes muster with the basic structure of the Constitution, former Chief Justices of India J S Khehar and D Y Chandrachud questioned the legislation's entrusting of unbridled powers to the Election Commission, and also raised questions about other aspects of the legislation.
In a meeting of the JPC on One Nation-One Poll (ONOP) that lasted over six hours, the two former CJIs are learnt to have expressed reservations about various clauses that the panel members went over. Justice Khehar is said to have deposed for around two-and-a-half hours and Justice Chandrachud for three hours. Crunching the protracted depositions on Friday, sources said the two argued that the contentious bill passed muster on the touchstone of the basic structure, but its specific features failed on the anvil of legalities.
Both the judges are said to have suggested a lot of amendments.
On Clause 82A (5) of the proposed bill, it was said the EC was being given such vast powers that it could postpone election in any state on the ground that the situation was not conducive. According to the bill, the EC can postpone election in one state if it feels they cannot be held with the Lok Sabha polls, but the said assembly's term would ultimately end with the term of LS.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
So sánh mức trượt giá: Hợp đồng tương lai (CFD) Bitcoin vs Ethereum
IC Markets
Tìm hiểu thêm
Undo
Previously, former CJI Ranjan Gogoi had also questioned the broad authority given to the EC under Article 82A (5).
To date, four former CJIs, including Justice U U Lalit, have shared their opinion with the committee.
It was felt that such a clause would end up in the court with legal challenges. A member, quoting the judges, said the bill would require many amendments.
Unfettered powers without parliamentary oversight, one CJI is learnt to have said, were unprecedented.
Justice Chandrachud is learnt to have said that there were "constitutional silences" in the bill.
The JPC, headed by P P Chaudhary, comprises Manish Tewari, P Wilson, Randeep Surjewala, Anil Baluni, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Bhartruhari Mahtab and Sambit Patra, among others.
Questions are said to have been asked about the bill's provision to align the electoral cycle of one state with those of others and Parliament.
Justice Khehar is said to have asked what would happen if Emergency is announced in one state which could be extended for up to one year: something which would throw the electoral cycle out of sync with others.
A senior JPC member welcomed the suggestions of the CJIs and said the committee was open to refining the bill based on expert input. "Our goal is to incorporate reforms suggested by experts and the public," the member said, emphasising that the committee would consider these views while preparing its final report for Parliament.
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
No interim stay on draft electoral roll publication in Bihar: SC asks EC to accept Aadhaar, voter ID
The Supreme Court Monday refused to stay the publication of draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, saying it would once for all decide the pleas against the Election Commission's special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, news agency PTI reported. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said it would fix on July 29, the scheduled time for the final hearing of the matter, as per the report. Appearing for an NGO, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said the electoral rolls should not be finalised in the interim, and there should be an interim stay on the publication of the draft rolls. The bench observed the last order of the top court noted the petitioners were not pressing for an interim relief and, therefore, it couldn't be done now and matter would be interpreted once for all, PTI quoted. On acceptance of Aadhaar card, voter ID in SIR The SC reiterated its suggestion to the poll panel to continue accepting Aadhaar and voter ID for the SIR exercise in Bihar in compliance with its order saying both documents had a 'presumption of genuineness'. The court said it prima facie agreed with the order of the top court and the EC accepted in its counter affidavit that Aadhaar, voter cards and ration cards were required to be accepted. '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 presumption of genuineness. You continue accepting these documents,' the bench said. Earlier, on July 10, the SC, while declining to restrain the EC from proceeding with the SIR in Bihar, suggested the poll panel to consider Aadhaar, voter ID and ration cards for the purpose of updating the rolls. The EC, in a counter-affidavit filed in court on July 22, however, said it was its 'Constitutional authority' to determine whether the requirement of citizenship is fulfilled by electors, but citizenship of an individual will 'not terminate' on account of being held ineligible as an elector. Responding to the poll body's claim in the SC, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), had argued that it flies in the face of past judgments. It also called the exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents 'patently absurd,' noting that Aadhaar is widely accepted when applying for passports, caste certificates, and permanent residence documents. The first phase of SIR of Bihar's electoral rolls concluded last Friday, with EC declaring about 92 per cent of 7.89 crore registered voters in the state would remain on the draft rolls to be published on August 1. About 8 per cent, or approximately 65 lakh names, are likely to be removed from the draft rolls after they were found to be either deceased, registered in more than one place, permanently migrated to another place, or untraceable, according to the EC. The Assembly elections are due to be held in Bihar later this year.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bihar SIR: Supreme Court asks EC to reconsider Aadhaar and election ID; no interim stay on draft voter roll publication
Representative Image NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court once again asked the Election Commission to consider the Aadhaar card and the electoral photo identity card as admissible documents to prove the identity of voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral polls, which is under way in Bihar. The Election Commission launched the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar on June 24. According to the ECI, there are 11 documents that a person needed for voter roll update and they are: Any identity card/Pension Payment Order issued to a regular employee/pensioner, any identity card/certificate/document issued in India prior to July 1, 1987, birth certificate, passport, matriculation/educational certificate, permanent residence certificate, OBC/SC/ST or any caste certificate, national register of citizens, family Register, any land/house allotment certificate by the government. The bench indicated its preliminary agreement with the Supreme Court's order, noting the Election Commission's acknowledgment in its counter affidavit regarding the acceptance of Aadhaar, voter cards and ration cards, PTI reported. The court observed that whilst ration cards might be susceptible to forgery, Aadhaar and voter cards possessed inherent authenticity and should continue to be accepted as valid documentation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Senior Living Homes in Ban Ban Me May Surprise You Senior Living | Search Ads Undo A division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi announced that the final hearing schedule would be determined on July 29. The NGO's representative, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, requested a temporary halt on finalising electoral rolls and publishing draft rolls. The court noted that since petitioners had not previously sought interim relief, it could not be granted now. The matter would be conclusively interpreted at the hearing. According to the EC, the SIR saw over 7.24 crore of Bihar's 7.89 crore electors participate, a turnout rate of nearly 92%. However, multiple affidavits and field reports challenge this figure, suggesting enumeration forms were uploaded en masse by BLOs without voter consent. ADR and other petitioners claimed that even dead people were shown to have submitted forms, raising concerns of systemic fraud to meet internal targets. The EC has said that no name will be deleted without a 'speaking order' and due notice. The draft rolls will be published on August 1, and electors or parties can file claims or objections till September 1. Appeals can be made to the District Magistrate or CEO if needed.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Why Did You Wait?" Supreme Court's Tough Questions To Cash Row Judge
New Delhi: Hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging the Supreme Court's action against him following the cash recovery from his Delhi home, the top court today said the petition "should not have been filed like this" and that the judge's "main issue is with the Supreme Court". "This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see, the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is (the) Supreme Court as your grievance is against the process mentioned," the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih said. According to the Supreme Court website, the petition, filed by the judge under the name 'XXX', has three respondents: (1) The Union of India (2) Supreme Court of India (3) Supreme Court of India. Justice Datta also took exception when he found that the report of the three-judge panel, which probed the allegations against Justice Varma, had not been attached to the petition. "Where is the report of the three-judge panel?" he asked. When Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal replied that the report is in public domain, Justice Datta replied, "No, you should have attached the report with your plea." Arguing the matter, Mr Sibal pointed to the rules laid down in the Constitution for the removal of a judge. He flagged the action against Justice Varma and said it did not follow due process. "The constitutional scheme appears to be that unless the misconduct etc is proven on the ground of proven misbehaviour etc, there cannot be a discussion of judges' conduct even in the parliament. If the Constitution scheme is that such conduct cannot be discussed even in Parliament till such misconduct is proven, then it is difficult to believe that such an action is acceptable elsewhere. All the release of tapes, putting on website, and a public furore consequential thereto, media accusations against judges, findings by the public, discussing conduct of judges... all are prohibited. If the procedure allows them to do that, then it is violative of the constitution bench judgment," he said. The top court referred to former Chief Justice Khanna's letter to the Prime Minister and President, recommending action against Justice Varma. "How do you know the letter asked for impeachment? The letter is not in the public domain," the court asked. When Mr Sibal said the cash was found in the outhouse and questioned how it could be attributed to the judge, Justice Datta responded, "Police, FIR, staff, all were there and cash was found." The senior lawyer replied that the judge's staff were not present. When Justice Datta asked if Mr Sibal was saying that the committee's report is not worth it, he replied, "No, it's not." "Why did you not challenge when (the) committee was appointed, why did you wait? Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," Justice Datta asked. Mr Sibal said Justice Varma appeared before the committee because he thought it would find out who the cash belonged to. The case will be heard next on Wednesday. Justice Varma made headlines after a massive cash recovery from his Delhi residence during a fire. Following the incident, which triggered allegations of corruption, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court from his earlier posting in the Delhi High Court. The then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. Following the panel's report, the then Chief Justice recommended Justice Varma's removal. The judge has now challenged this action. He has said the top court panel did not hear him. The judge has said that the Supreme Court's recommendation for his removal based on the panel's report "usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office". "This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," it says.
