Today, On 18th December, Supreme Court continues hearing the SIR validity case across states. The apex Court directs the Election Commission of India to decide the proposal within timeline, stating “Take A Decision On Or Before 31 December And Apprise The Court”.
Justice Dipankar Datta, born on August 10, 1960, assumed office in the Supreme Court on December 12, 2022, after serving as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. With 81 authored judgments, notable cases include media influence in investigations and challenges against restrictive IT Rules. He retires on February 8, 2030.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the Congress party’s 2023 election manifesto pledges are not considered ‘corrupt practices’ under the Representation of People Act of 1951. The court emphasized that policy declarations by political parties cannot be classified as corrupt practices and stated that the validity of policies should be left to the voters’ discretion. The court rejected a petition challenging the election of a Congress MLA based on the party’s manifesto.
Today(on 19th April), the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on Lok Sabha nomination paper rejection, cautioning against court interference to avoid potential chaos. The petitioner was advised to pursue legal remedies instead. The case highlighted concerns over arbitrary rejection of nomination papers, advocating for a fairer electoral process. The Banka constituency will vote on April 26th. Follow for more legal updates.
On Wednesday (18th April): The Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for an independent candidate from Banka, Bihar. The candidate contests the cancellation of their Lok Sabha polls nomination, citing arbitrary decision-making by Election Returning Officers. The petition also seeks clarity on the term “defects of substantial character” in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Allahabad High Court has set conditions for firearm deposits during Lok Sabha elections, emphasizing the need for specific reasons, in response to Election Commission directives. The decision aims to prevent arbitrary orders and legal disputes, warning authorities of potential exemplary costs for non-compliance. The court clarified that legitimate reasons for firearm deposits should be issued through specific orders.