Govt officials balk at interfering in ex-CJI home row
With
Supreme Court
taking an unusual step of asking the govt to take back the official bungalow of CJI at 5, Krishna Menon Marg, officials are hopeful of the situation sorting out itself sparing them of an unpleasant task of serving eviction notice to a former CJI.
Media reports quoted ex-CJI D Y Chandrachud as saying they (he & family) are set to move out in a few days.
Officials hopeful they won't need to serve ex-CJI eviction notice
Amid media reports quoted ex-CJI D Y Chandrachud saying they (he & family) are set to move out and it was only a matter of a few days, officials in the housing and urban affairs ministry said they are hopeful that there would be no need for serving an eviction notice. Officials said this is perhaps for the first time when the SC administration has asked it to get a bungalow vacated from a former CJI and return it to the SC housing pool for fresh allotment.
They added that for them it was a peculiar situation since the bungalow is placed under the SC housing pool and it is the apex court which takes a call on allotment. In a July 1 letter to the housing and urban affairs secretary, the SC administration had pointed out that the time allowed for the former CJI to vacate the official accommodation had expired, and hence, the bungalow must be vacated without delay.
Sources said SC authorities wrote to the ministry as all govt accommodations, including those meant for judges and belonging to the SC pool, fall under the ministry's jurisdiction and it is the ministry that is responsible for carrying out any eviction.
SC is in need of official accommodation for four judges, sources said.
Rule 3B of the SC Judges Rules, 2022, allows retired CJIs to retain their bungalow for up to six months after retirement. Justice Chandrachud, who retired as CJI in Nov 2024, has been staying there. In Dec, he wrote to his successor and former CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna, seeking time until April 30, 2025, to retain the bungalow, and this was allowed.
Again in April, he wrote to the then CJI, Khanna, seeking time until June 30, citing difficulty in finding a suitable accommodation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Bihar voter verification row reaches Supreme Court, hearing on July 10
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections, reported Bar and Bench. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. He was joined by senior counsels Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Shadan Farasat. The petitioners include Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), activist Yogendra Yadav, and Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra. At the heart of the legal challenge is a directive under the SIR requiring voters not present on the 2003 roll to provide citizenship documentation. For individuals born after December 2004, both their own and their parents' documents are required. If a parent is a foreign national, a copy of their passport and visa as held at the time of the applicant's birth must be submitted. What did the Supreme Court say? The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter on Thursday, July 10. It has also issued notices to the Election Commission and the Centre, seeking their responses to the constitutional and legal concerns raised. Petitioners argue the exercise is 'arbitrary and illegal' and violates provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. ADR has also claimed that the directive breaches constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), 21 (life and liberty), 325 (no exclusion from electoral rolls), and 326 (adult suffrage). Election Commission defends revision, cites legal mandate The Election Commission has defended its move, asserting that it is acting within its mandate to ensure accuracy in electoral rolls. It also cited precedents of similar revision drives being conducted in the past. What happens next? The outcome of this case could impact how voter verification is carried out in other states as well. If the Supreme Court rules against the poll panel, it could set a precedent restricting such revisions close to elections. For now, the political heat in Bihar continues to rise as all eyes turn to the Supreme Court hearing on July 10.
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to take up on Thursday pleas challenging ECI's Bihar electoral roll revision
The Supreme Court will on Thursday take up petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) special intensive revision of the electoral roll in poll-bound Bihar. The court noted that elections have not been notified yet. (HT PHOTO) Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Trinamool Congress lawmakers Manoj Jha and Mahua Moitra, non-government organisations Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, and political activist Yogendra Yadav have filed the pleas. 'Put up on Thursday. An advance copy of the petition be given to the respondent [ECI],' said a bench of justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that this is a matter of the moment that should be taken up and a notice be issued to the ECI. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi supported the suggestion. He said that instead of calling upon the respondent on Thursday, notice should be issued so that a stay of the revision can be taken up on that day without wasting further time. 'Such a squeezed timeline has been specified with just a month given to submit the enumeration forms that will expire later this month.' The bench said that the timelines cited do not have the sanctity as in the MS Gill decision. In cases such as MS Gill Vs Chief Election Commissioner (1978) and Lakshmi Charan Sen Vs AKM Hassan Uzzaman (1985), the court underscored that elections, once in progress, should be allowed to proceed uninterrupted to protect the democratic process. The approach aligns with a broader principle that the judiciary's role is to interpret the law and test its validity, not to create laws or interfere directly in legislative matters. Judicial restraint in electoral affairs has been a consistent theme in Indian jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has often invoked it in cases where parties have sought to halt elections. The bench said elections have not been notified. 'You can serve a copy even to the office of the attorney general. We will see.' In his plea, Jha called the revision a tool of 'institutionalised disenfranchisement' that will disproportionately target Muslim, Dalit, and poor migrant communities in a state, where elections are to be held before November this year, when the term of the assembly expires. The other petitions echoed concerns about the manner and timing of the ECI in undertaking the exercise, giving 30 days for voters to provide proof of their citizenship based on a set of 11 documents, which do not include readily available ones such as Aadhaar, ECI photo identity card, or ration card. Jha's petition called the revision process 'hasty and ill-timed'. He added that it had the effect of 'disenfranchising crores of voters, thereby robbing them of their constitutional right to vote.' 'It [ECI order] is being used to justify aggressive and opaque revisions of electoral rolls that disproportionately target Muslim, Dalit, and poor migrant communities; as such, they are not random patterns but it is engineered exclusions.' Jha noted that the exercise has been launched during the monsoon, when many districts are affected by floods and the displacement of the local population. His petition questioned the meaningful participation of a large section of the population. On June 24, the ECI announced the revision, emphasising the need to clean the electoral roll due to rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, increasing numbers of first-time voters, non-reporting of deaths, and the inclusion of names of undocumented foreigners. The ECI said an electoral roll revision was last held in Bihar in 2003, which covered nearly 50 million people, underlining it has a constitutional obligation to ensure that only citizens are on it. It instructed the electoral registration officers to treat the 2003 electoral roll as 'probative evidence of eligibility, including presumption of citizenship unless they receive any other input otherwise.' The voters are required to submit enumeration forms within 30 days, followed by the filing of claims and objections and their disposal within 30 days. Jha said it is a settled law that the burden of proving the citizenship lies with the state. He added that an overwhelming majority (about 47.4 million out of 79 million on the current electoral roll) carry a disproportionately high burden of proving their citizenship with the help of proofs of date and place of birth. As per ECI data, Bihar has 7,89,69,844 registered voters as of June 24, 2025. The state is the native place of the highest number of migrant workers, with over 9.3 million people migrating between 2001 and 2011. The petitions argued that the migrant workers will be the most affected, as many of them, despite remaining listed in the 2003 voter roll, are unlikely to be able to return to Bihar within the stipulated time frame of 30 days to submit their enumeration forms, leading to automatic deletion of their names. The pleas termed the ECI's decision unconstitutional and said it is violative of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The revision order and the subsequent press release empower the electoral registration officers or such other officers to initiate a suo motu inquiry. The officers can issue notices to the proposed electors and decide upon their inclusion in the final electoral roll, even as Rule 13(2) permits filing of claims and objections only at the instance of the affected person. The petitioners argued that short deadlines make the whole process unreasonable and unworkable and have the effect of bypassing the procedure of conducting of inquiry into claims and objections as contemplated under the Rules. Moitra's petition cited information and said the ECI has decided to undertake a similar exercise in West Bengal and sought an order to restrain it. She claimed the exercise resembles the structure and consequences of the National Register of Citizens, as the consequence of non-submission of documents will result in automatic exclusion from the electoral roll, without adequate procedural protection. The petitions cited a Special Summary Revision between October 2024 and January 2025 in the state, when the necessary weeding out of names based on death, migration, etc, was carried out. 'The ECI's decision to conduct a second revision in such a draconian manner in a poll-bound state is unjustified and unreasonable,' Moitra said. ADR, in its petition, said that the special intensive revision violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, and other provisions of the Constitution. It said that if not set aside, the process can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Wire
40 minutes ago
- The Wire
Bihar Rolls: Why Is the Election Commission Sending Out Conflicting Notifications?
Could the EC's confusing ad be encouraging people without documents to submit a form, thus allowing it to build a list of those who cannot prove their eligibility? In this image released by @ECISVEEP via X on June 9, 2025, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar during an interaction with the Indian Diaspora in Stockholm, Sweden. Photo: PTI The Election Commission of India's voter re-verification drive in Bihar descended into chaos this weekend after it sent a volley of conflicting messages. The signals suggest the ECI is scrambling to shield itself from rising legal and public pressure. It began with a newspaper ad in Bihar that seemed to reverse the ECI's strict document rules. 'If the necessary documents and photo are not available,' it said, 'then just fill the enumeration form and make it available to the BLO.' Critics immediately called it a retreat. Journalist Ravish Kumar declared it an opposition victory, posting on X, 'The Election Commission has made a significant change... Now, let the Commission explain why this campaign is happening?' But the ECI quickly rejected this view. It insisted on X that its activities followed its June 24 order and that voters could submit documents later. Officials then told The Times of India the list of 11 documents was always 'indicative, not exhaustive.' Annexure C in the ECI's June 24 order says the same. This flexibility, however, had a catch. Aadhaar, a document held by over 90% of Biharis, would likely still be rejected. The state's political opposition condemned the mixed signals. Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Yadav said today, July 7, that his alliance had 'deep worry over the contradictory directions and advertisements issued by the Election Commission of India.' Yadav's statement captured a growing suspicion; that the ECI, facing a Supreme Court hearing on July 10, is making a strategic move. Analysts see two possible motives. First, the ECI may be trying to save a failing project. The logistics have been repeatedly questioned. With just 18 days to the deadline, its own data showed only 21.5% of 7.9 crore forms had been collected. The digitisation bottleneck is worse: only 7.25% of forms are uploaded to the central portal. By getting people to submit forms even without documents, the ECI can tell the Supreme Court that millions of forms are already in. It can then argue that stopping the process now would be wasteful. Second, and more alarming, the ad may be a Trojan horse. By encouraging people without documents to submit a form, the ECI could be building a list of those who cannot prove their eligibility. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) could then use this list under the controversial Clause 5(b) to refer 'suspected foreign nationals' to citizenship tribunals. The ad would become not a concession, but a tool to efficiently target people for disenfranchisement and potential deportment. Representing the RJD in the Supreme Court today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal called the one-month timeline an 'impossible task.' Across the petitions, the core arguments warn of a looming constitutional crisis: RJD MP Manoj Jha argued the process is a 'tool for institutionalised disenfranchisement' that ' disproportionately targets Muslim, Dalit and poor migrant communities ' by excluding documents like Aadhaar. Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra argued the drive introduces citizenship rules not found in the Constitution and alleges the plan will be repeated in West Bengal. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) noted the ECI failed to provide the legally required 'reasons to be recorded' for such a drastic step so soon after a routine revision. The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) called the process obsolete and costly, risking the defeat of 'democracy using the very tools of democracy' by creating 'exclusionary administrative mazes.' A sharp opinion from former Chief Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa adds weight to these fears. He questioned why the ECI would use a rule that risks stripping citizens of their vote, instead of its own 'time-tested procedure,' especially in a country 'where no citizenship document is issued by the government.' While scheduling the hearing, the Supreme Court offered a clue to its thinking. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the July 25 deadline 'doesn't have sanctity as elections have not been notified as yet.' Caught between a logistical mess, a storm of legal challenges, and sharp criticism from a former election commissioner, the ECI's efforts to control the story have only deepened the crisis. All eyes now turn to the Supreme Court, which will rule on a process that threatens the fundamental rights of millions. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
