Today, On 7th October, in the Bihar SIR Row ,Supreme Court Asks ECI to Reveal 3.66 Lakh Deleted and 21 Lakh Added Voters, and Clarify Whether the Added Names Were Previously Removed or Are New, Seeking Full Transparency in Electoral Roll
Today, On 7th October, in the Bihar SIR Row ,Supreme Court Questions Transparency in Bihar SIR Row | “A Person Would Know Whether His Name Is There on the Electoral Roll or Not,” Says Justice Kant as Bench Seeks ECI’s Response on Alleged Voter Deletions
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi called for a review of the Constitution’s Basic Structure Doctrine, describing it as “vague, ambiguous and ever-growing.” He remarked that Parliament itself does not clearly know what constitutes the doctrine’s scope.
The Election Commission told the Supreme Court it is working under “sharp political hostility” where nearly every decision faces challenges, while defending its Bihar voter roll revision. The SC has directed greater transparency, including publishing deleted voter names with reasons.
Today, On 6th August, Supreme Court tells ECI to submit a detailed reply by August 10 on deletion of 65 lakh names from Bihar draft voter list, saying, “We will ensure every affected voter is heard and considered.”
Today, On 29th July, The Supreme Court has scheduled a detailed hearing on August 12 in the Bihar voter list revision case. It warned, “If there is any mass exclusion, then the Court will step in,” amid concerns over the SIR process.
The Supreme Court has heard petitions challenging ECI’s Bihar voter roll revision ahead of state polls. No interim relief granted; Court asserts power to act if irregularities are found.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin honored Supreme Court lawyers for their role in a significant case regarding the Governor’s approval of state Bills. He praised their efforts, emphasizing the verdict as a victory for democracy and cooperative federalism. Stalin announced plans for a panel to study Centre-State relations following the judgment’s impact.
The Supreme Court of India is reviewing a Public Interest Litigation challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of People Act, which permits unopposed candidates to be elected without votes. Concerns about potential misuse by powerful candidates were raised. Suggestions were made for requiring minimum votes for such candidates to enhance democratic integrity.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the President must decide on bills proposed by the Governor within three months, addressing delays faced by the Tamil Nadu government. The ruling emphasized that both the President and Governor cannot delay decisions indefinitely and clarified conditions under which their actions can be challenged in court.
