Latest news with #1951
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Rahul Gandhi's 'vote theft' claim an afterthought, says EC
NEW DELHI: Election Commission of India on Thursday said leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi 's allegations of "vote theft" during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in Karnataka appear to be an afterthought, given that Congress neither filed a single appeal with election officials after publication of the state's final electoral roll in Jan 2024 nor did it challenge the results in state high court through an election petition. Talking to reporters in Parliament complex, Rahul claimed that Congress has "concrete 100% proof" of "cheating in an LS seat" in Karnataka and warned that "if you (EC) think you are going to get away with this... you are mistaken... we are going to come for you". The Congress MP said opposition would ensure that EC is held accountable. Dismissing his charges as "baseless" in a statement, EC said: "It is highly unfortunate that rather than filing an election petition as per section 80 of Representation of the People (RP)Act, 1951, or if filed, awaiting verdict of HC, he has not only made baseless allegations but also chosen to threaten EC, which is a constitutional body." With his allegations coming more than a year after the LS polls result, EC said it was wondering why "such baseless and threatening claims were being made against it and the CEC, and that too now." It added that the losing Congress candidates did not file a single election petition to challenge the result, despite Representation of the People Act, 1951 allowing this within 45 days of declaration of result. Others, however, did file 10 election petitions in HC. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Dubai villas | search ads Get Deals Undo Countering Rahul's "unwarranted threatening statements", the Karnataka chief electoral officer (CEO) on X said copies of the draft and final electoral roll for the state's 224 assembly seats were provided to recognised parties, including Congress, on Oct 27, 2023, and Jan 22, 2024, respectively. Between publication of the draft and final roll, around 9.2 lakh claims and objections were received and settled across 34 districts. Neither Congress nor any other entity avail the two-stage appeal option available under Representation of the People Act, 1951, the post said. Meanwhile, backing RJD functionary Tejashwi Yadav suggested possibility of boycotting Bihar elections over the special revision of electoral rolls issue, Congress' K C Venugopal said a political party's biggest weapon in a democracy is the voters' list and if that is compromised, with names being deleted and lists not being clean, then you are challenging democracy. "Let there not be an election and there be one party. Let Election Commission rule that. That is what Yadav meant by his comment about boycotting," Venugopal said.
The Hindu
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
What is the legal status of right to vote?
The story so far: The Supreme Court is hearing cases filed against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. One of the questions that has arisen during this debate has been the legal status of the 'right to vote.' What are various rights? Before understanding the status of 'right to vote' in India, let us briefly understand the different types of rights. Natural rights are inherent and inalienable rights that are bestowed by nature on individuals. Right to life and liberty are considered to be natural rights. Indian courts may decide that a natural right is embodied in a fundamental right, but they do not directly enforce any natural right. Fundamental rights enumerated and guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution secure equality and liberty which are enshrined in our Preamble. The state is prohibited from making laws that violate these rights. They are directly enforceable in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Constitutional rights are contained in the Constitution but outside of Part III. These rights include right to property, free trade, and no taxation without the authority of law. These rights are operationalised through Union and State legislations aligning with the constitutional mandate. They are enforceable in a High Court under Article 226 or as per the legal process in the laws that operationalise them. Statutory or legal rights are provided and amended by ordinary laws of Parliament or State legislature. Examples include right to work under the MGNREG Act; rights of scheduled tribes under the Forest Rights Act; right to subsidised food grains under the National Food Security Act etc. These are enforceable as per the legal process in the laws that provide these rights. What does the Constitution say about universal adult franchise? Article 326 of the Constitution grants every citizen the right to vote, without any discrimination. It provides that every citizen, who is not less than 18 years of age on such date as may be fixed by law and is not otherwise disqualified under the Constitution or any law on certain grounds, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter. The laws enacted by Parliament in this regard are the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act, 1950) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951). Section 16 of the RP Act, 1950 disqualifies a non-citizen from being enrolled in the electoral roll. Section 19 of the same law requires that the person is not less than 18 years of age on the qualifying date and is 'ordinarily resident' in a constituency. Section 62 of the RP Act, 1951 provides the right to vote to every person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of a constituency. It further specifies that this right shall not be exercisable by a person who is disqualified under the RP Act, 1950 or is in prison. What have courts ruled? The legal status of the right to vote has been a subject matter of debate in various cases in our country. In the case (1952), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to vote is a statutory right and subject to limitations imposed by it. In the Jyoti Basu case (1982), the court reiterated that the right to vote is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right but a simple statutory right. Subsequently in many cases, the same ratio was followed and upheld by the court. In the PUCL case (2003), Justice P.V. Reddy observed that the right to vote, if not a fundamental right, is certainly a 'constitutional right.' However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Kuldip Nayar case (2006), again held that right to vote is only a statutory right. In the Raj Bala case (2015), a division bench of the Supreme Court, based on the ratio in the PUCL case, held that the right to vote is a constitutional right. However, in the Anoop Baranwal case (2023), the majority opinion, reiterated the judgment in the Kuldip Nayar case, that the right to vote is only a statutory right. Hence, the current legal status of the right to vote is that it is a statutory right. Justice Ajay Rastogi, in his partial dissent in Anoop Baranwal, noted that the right to vote is an expression of the choice of the citizen, which is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Right to vote is intrinsic to free and fair elections that is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Even if not considered a fundamental right, this right originates from Article 326 of the Constitution and is shaped by statutes made by Parliament. Considering these factors, the Supreme Court may consider elevating the status of right to vote into a constitutional right. Rangarajan. R is a former IAS officer and author of 'Courseware on Polity Simplified'. Views expressed are personal.
The Wire
17-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
'Criminalising journalism': Editors Guild Says It is Deeply Disturbed Over FIR Against Ajit Anjum
The FIR was registered on July 13 at the Ballia police station. New Delhi: The Editors Guild of India has said in a statement that it is deeply disturbed by the filing of an FIR against veteran Ajit Anjum for his reporting in Bihar. The FIR was registered on July 13 at the Ballia police station in connection to a video on his YouTube channel on July 12, in which Anjum had alleged large-scale irregularities in the voter list in the Sahebpur Kamal assembly constituency. 'Following this visit, Mr. Anjum's coverage highlighted several alleged irregularities in the revision process. He has now been accused of interfering with the electoral roll revision, provoking communal discord, and spreading misinformation. Based on a complaint by an election official, Mr. Anjum has been booked under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951,' said the Editors Guild Statement dated Wednesday (July 16). The Editors Guild Statement on the FIR against journalist Ajit Anjum. The video on Anjum's YouTube channel had showed how the special intensive revision (SIR) process was being undertaken in Balia and claimed that many voter forms were being filled and uploaded without the Election Commission's required documents or photographs. 'The Editors Guild does not seek to defend or refute the contents of Shri Anjum's reportage. However, the registration of an FIR for what appears to be a legitimate journalistic exercise seems excessive. Administrators have various means to counter or clarify a media report if they so choose. Criminalising journalism and invoking serious legal provisions against journalists should not be among them,' said the Editors Guild in the statement. 'The Editors Guild hopes that better sense will prevail and that journalists – including Mr. Anjum – will not face impediments in the discharge of their professional duties. All stakeholders must work to safeguard and promote journalism that is both responsible and truthful,' the statement added. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Indian Express
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Citizenship, due process, timing: SC marks out three key issues for the commission
Even as the Supreme Court allowed the Election Commission (EC) to continue its Special Intensive Revision of the electoral list in Bihar, a two-judge bench Thursday flagged three key issues that the commission will have to factor in as it formulates its response. These include: the EC's power to check the citizenship of voters; the importance of due process and procedure to be followed during the revision and the timing of the revision itself. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi said that 'there is no question that this issue is an important one and goes to the very root of democracy and the right to vote.' The bench, in the three-hour-long hearing, acknowledged that the EC, as a constitutional body, has powers well beyond the Representation of People's Act, 1951 (RPA) and that the Court will not stop the EC. However, the SC also made it clear that the process would be subject to judicial intervention. On the citizenship issue, the bench observed that it is the remit of the Ministry of Home Affairs to determine whether an individual is a citizen. '…citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the Ministry of Home Affairs,' the bench said when EC's counsel, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, defended the Commission's decision to exclude Aadhaar as a valid document. EC's lawyers cited Article 326 of the Constitution, which mandates voting based on adult suffrage. 'The precondition for adult suffrage is citizenship,' Dwivedi argued. However, the bench then observed that if the EC wanted to ensure that only citizens are on the electoral rolls, then it 'should have started the process much earlier.' Essentially, the Court raised questions about the timing of the exercise and inquired whether it could be delinked from the Bihar elections. 'Your decision, to disenfranchise the person who is already there on the electoral roll in 2025, would compel this individual to appeal against (the) decision and go through this entire rigmarole and thereby be denied of his right to vote in the ensuing election. There is nothing wrong in you purging electoral rolls through an intensive exercise to see that non-citizens do not remain on the rolls. But if you decide only a couple of months before a proposed election…' Justice Bagchi said. 'If you ask for these documents immediately, even I will not be able to produce it now, look at the practicality, look at the timeline,' Justice Dhulia added. The judges also asked the EC questions on the process it would follow, in case of disenfranchisement of a voter. 'If a 'summary revision' under the Representation of People's Act calls for a verbal hearing before deletion of a voter from the electoral roll, can it be said that the 'intensive' revision cannot have that process?' Justice Dhulia asked. According to the rules in the RPA, in all cases of proposed voter deletions, except for confirmed deaths, a notice is served to the voter, providing them with a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The SC also, in its order, asked the EC to explain why Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Card (voter card issued by the EC) and ration card cannot be accepted as valid documents in the SIR process. This potentially increases the ambit of the 11-document list that has set off widespread panic and confusion on the ground. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
The Hindu
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why is the ECI de-listing political parties?
The story so far: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has initiated steps to de-list 345 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs) that have not contested elections in the last six years and whose offices could not be physically located. What are registered parties? The right to form an association is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution to all citizens. Political parties are an association or body of individuals that can be formed by citizens. Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) lays down the requirements for registration of a political party with the ECI. Any political party that seeks registration should submit a copy of its memorandum/constitution within 30 days of its formation. Such a document should contain a provision that the party shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India. It should also bear allegiance to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The ECI reviews the memorandum/constitution of the political party to verify that it contains provisions for internal democracy like periodic elections for its office bearers. The ECI thereafter registers them as a RUPP. The RUPPs enjoy the following benefits — (a) tax exemption for donations received under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (b) a common symbol for contesting general elections to the Lok Sabha/State Assemblies, and (c) 20 'star campaigners' during election campaigns. RUPPs are required to maintain the details of individual donors who have donated above ₹20,000 in a financial year and submit these details to the ECI every year. As per Section 29C of the RP Act, failure to furnish these details will result in losing income tax exemption. The RUPPs under the Income Tax Act, 1961, are further required to accept donations in excess of ₹2000 only through cheque or bank transfers. What are the issues? As per ECI notification, there are more than 2,800 RUPPs in India as of May 2025. However, only around 750 of them contested the 2024 general elections. It has resulted in the moniker — 'letter pad parties' — for the rest of the RUPPs. The RP Act does not confer explicit powers on the ECI to de-register any political party if it fails to contest elections, conduct inner-party elections or lodge requisite returns. The Supreme Court in Indian National Congress versus Institute of Social Welfare & Ors (2002) had held that the ECI does not have the power to de-register any political party under the RP Act. It may de-register only under exceptional circumstances such as the registration being obtained by fraud or the political party ceasing to have allegiance to the Indian Constitution or if it is declared unlawful by the Government. The ECI from time to time publishes the list of de-listed and inactive RUPPs. The notification of March 2024 (as amended till May 2025), contains the list of 281 de-listed and 217 inactive RUPPs. Parties have been de-listed after they were found to be 'non-existent' at their address even after notices from the ECI. Political parties that have not updated the material changes including the list of office bearers since 2014 have been classified as 'inactive'. These parties are denied the benefit of putting up candidates with a common symbol in an election. Considering the provisions of the RP Act and the Income Tax Act, they would also become ineligible for tax exemptions. What needs to be done? The present exercise has identified 345 RUPPs that have not contested any elections since 2019 and could not be physically located anywhere. The ECI has directed the Chief Electoral Officer of various States and Union Territories to issue show-cause notices to these RUPPs before deciding on de-listing them. This is a welcome step that would prevent such 'letter pad parties' from misusing the income tax exemptions or committing any other financial fraud. There are still likely to be more than 1000 'active' RUPPs that do not regularly contest elections. The Law Commission in its 255th report (2015) had recommended amendments for de-registration of a political party if it fails to contest elections for 10 consecutive years. The ECI in its memorandum for electoral reforms (2016) had also suggested amendment to the RP Act that would empower it to de-register a party. Apart from the exercise of de-listing RUPPs, these recommendations can also be implemented. Another serious issue plaguing almost all political parties is the lack of inner-party democracy. It may not be ideal for an independent constitutional authority like the ECI to be involved in the muddle of party politics. However, as suggested by the Law Commission in its 170th and 255th report, the RP Act can be suitably amended to contain specific provisions for ensuring internal democracy in political parties. Rangarajan. R is a former IAS officer and author of 'Courseware on Polity Simplified'. He currently trains at Officers IAS Academy. Views expressed are personal.
