sadalawpublications.com

Election Commission of India

SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline

Trending Today SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline “Hydrogen Bomb Ahead”: Rahul Gandhi Vows Exposure of Massive Vote Theft Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements System that lets rapists walk free: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CYRALAW LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CENTRE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MALABAR GROUP LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AMLEGALS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT DESTEK INFOSOLUTIONS SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline Shivani Garg Introduction The Supreme Court weighed in on the controversy surrounding Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, terming the confusion a matter of “trust deficit” between political parties and the Election Commission (EC). While the Court refused to extend the September 1 deadline for filing claims and objections, it introduced measures to strengthen transparency and voter support. Supreme Court’s Observations Trust Deficit: A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the SIR issue reflected a lack of trust between political parties and the EC. No Extension of Deadline: The Court declined requests to extend the September 1 cut-off, asking parties instead to “activate themselves” to mobilize voters. Facilitating Participation: The Court sought a balance between electoral fairness and administrative efficiency. Election Commission’s Stand Post-Deadline Claims Allowed: The EC clarified that claims, objections, and corrections can still be filed after September 1. Condition Applied: Such submissions will only be processed after the final roll is published, and only until the last date of nomination in each assembly constituency. Timely Roll Finalization: Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the EC, cautioned that deadline extensions could derail the roll finalization process. Deployment of Paralegal Volunteers Role of Bihar Legal Services Authority: Directed by the Supreme Court, paralegal volunteers will help voters and parties file claims and objections in the proper format. Accountability Mechanism: Volunteers will file confidential reports with district judges by September 8, ensuring oversight and reducing mistrust. Bridging Trust Gap: This measure seeks to instill confidence among stakeholders in the electoral process. Key Numbers Draft Electors: 2.74 crore Documentation Status: ~99.5% of electors have already submitted eligibility documents. Risk of Delay: The EC stressed that relaxing deadlines may disrupt timelines crucial to upcoming polls. Analysis Trust vs. Procedure: The Court acknowledged trust issues but avoided altering procedural timelines. Balance of Rights: By allowing post-deadline claims under conditions, the EC and Court sought to preserve both voter inclusion and administrative order. New Transparency Mechanism: Paralegal volunteers mark a novel intervention to monitor fairness in electoral roll preparation. What Lies Ahead Monitoring Reports: District judges will receive volunteer reports by September 8. Election Readiness: The EC will finalize rolls on schedule to maintain the electoral calendar. Political Impact: Parties will have to rely on grassroots mobilization and volunteer-driven support instead of deadline extensions. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s intervention in Bihar’s SIR process underscores the delicate balance between electoral integrity, administrative discipline, and public trust. While deadlines remain intact, the introduction of paralegal volunteers could set a precedent for enhancing voter participation and transparency in future elections. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments “Hydrogen Bomb Ahead”: Rahul Gandhi Vows Exposure of Massive Vote Theft Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline Read More »

Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process

Trending Today Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process BJP Launches Mega Youth Enrolment Drive in Uttar Pradesh Ahead of 2025 Panchayat Polls LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KING STUBB & KASIVA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SOLOMON & CO., ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT EMPLIANCE INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT UTSAV MUKHERJEE LAW OFFICE LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT TRILECT ASSOCIATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SBICAP TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Supreme Court to Review Sedition-like Provision in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court Empowers Senior Citizens: Lawyers Allowed in Maintenance Tribunals Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process Shristi singh 11 AUG 2025 Former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot criticises the Union government’s decision to replace the Chief Justice of India with the Union Home Minister in the Election Commission of India appointment panel, warning it could undermine the independence of India’s electoral process. Introduction Senior Congress leader and former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot has strongly opposed recent changes to the Election Commission of India appointment process. The new rule replaces the Chief Justice of India with the Union Home Minister on the selection panel — a move Gehlot warns could compromise the body’s independence and public trust in free and fair elections. The Press Conference in Jaipur Speaking at a press meet in Civil Lines, Gehlot addressed journalists and party workers beneath the shade of a neem tree — a scene reminiscent of small, open-air political briefings in the Northeast India.A “Save Democracy, Save Constitution” banner waved behind him as he held up a copy of the amended rules, pointing to the clause that removed judicial representation from the panel. Background: How the Panel Worked Before Until this change, appointments to the Election Commission were made by a three-member panel: The Prime Minister of India (Chair) The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha The Chief Justice of India Now, the Union Home Minister has replaced the CJI, following a bill passed in the Lok Sabha last month. Gehlot’s Key Arguments 1. Loss of Judicial Oversight The judiciary’s presence ensured a non-political, impartial voice in the appointment process. Its removal, Gehlot argues, weakens credibility. 2. Risk of Political Bias With two of three panel members from the ruling party, appointments may prioritise loyalty over merit. 3. Decline in Public Confidence Gehlot stressed that elections depend on trust, warning that perceived bias could damage democratic legitimacy. He urged civil society, retired judges, and scholars to oppose the change and announced public awareness drives across Rajasthan’s urban and rural areas. Government’s Defence Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju defended the reform, citing Parliament’s constitutional authority. He argued that many democracies allow executive-only appointments without judicial involvement. The BJP in Rajasthan accused Gehlot of fear-mongering, claiming Congress fears losing upcoming elections. Public and Political Reactions In Jaipur’s academic circles, law students debated the reform’s constitutional implications. Some supported judicial involvement for checks and balances, while others believed the government should prove the process remains fair. In smaller towns like Sikar and Bhilwara, local Congress units distributed pamphlets explaining the Election Commission’s role and the impact of the appointment change. Lessons from the Northeast In states like Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Mizoram, electoral credibility depends heavily on public trust in the neutrality of election bodies. Even small procedural changes often face civil society scrutiny — a trend analysts believe could emerge in Rajasthan and other states. Expert Opinions Political analyst Sanjoy Hazarika emphasised the dangerous precedent of removing the judiciary from such appointments, warning that reinstating it later would be politically difficult. Professor Meenakshi Joshi of Jawaharlal Nehru University noted that the timing — just months before major elections — adds to public suspicion, regardless of actual fairness. Conclusion Gehlot called the reform a “dangerous experiment”, pledging to raise it in Parliament and the courts. He framed the debate as beyond party politics, stressing that it’s about safeguarding electoral integrity for future generations. As the controversy grows, the change in the Election Commission appointment process could become a defining issue in Rajasthan’s political discourse — much like in the politically aware Northeast, where institutional trust is paramount. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process Sadalaw • August 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments BJP Launches Mega Youth Enrolment Drive in Uttar Pradesh Ahead of 2025 Panchayat Polls Sadalaw • August 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court to Review Sedition-like Provision in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sadalaw • August 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process Read More »

Election Commission of India Delists 334 Unrecognised Political Parties Across the Country

Trending Today Election Commission of India Delists 334 Unrecognised Political Parties Across the Country JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DENTONS LINK LEGAL, MUMBAI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MZM LEGAL LLP, MUMBAI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE YUVACRACY CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW OFFICE OF AARUSHI S. DESAI, AHMEDABAD LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEAD INDIA INDIA Bloc Strategy Meeting Held at Rahul Gandhi’s Residence LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GEETANSH NAGPAL LAW CHAMBERS India–US Trade Talks Collapse Over Agriculture Disputes Manipur Violence: Supreme Court Seeks Data on 6,000 FIRs Election Commission of India Delists 334 Unrecognised Political Parties Across the Country Shristi singh 10 AUG 2025 In a major electoral reform, the Election Commission of India has delisted 334 unrecognised political parties for non-compliance and inactivity. Discover the reasons, state-wise breakdown, political reactions, and implications for upcoming elections. Introduction In one of its largest administrative clean-ups, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has removed 334 unrecognised political parties from its registry. The decision, announced on August 9, 2025, cites non-compliance with reporting rules and failure to participate in elections over the past decade.The move aims to streamline the electoral process, curb misuse of party status, and ensure greater transparency. The Announcement from Nirvachan Sadan The ECI issued a two-page press release from its Nirvachan Sadan headquarters in New Delhi. Although no press conference was held, the news quickly became a topic of discussion in political circles. In cities like Guwahati and Shillong, political analysts compared it to past efforts to deregister inactive parties. In Delhi’s old commercial hubs like Daryaganj and Karol Bagh, shuttered offices of some delisted parties served as a reminder that many existed only on paper. Background: The Status of Political Parties in India India has over 2,500 registered political parties, but only a few are officially recognised as national or state parties based on electoral performance.Unrecognised political parties enjoy certain benefits such as tax exemptions on donations but must submit: Annual financial statements Audited accounts Details of office-bearers The ECI found that hundreds had neither contested elections nor filed mandatory reports for years. Some were suspected of being “shell entities” involved in money laundering, flagged in investigations by the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate. Details of the Action According to the ECI: 334 parties delisted for persistent non-compliance under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 States with the highest removals: Uttar Pradesh (82), Maharashtra (51), Bihar (37) In the Northeast: Assam (9), Tripura (3), Meghalaya (2) Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar stressed the move was “procedural, not political” and confirmed annual registry reviews will continue. Political Reactions Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) welcomed the step, calling it a boost to electoral integrity. The Indian National Congress supported the action but questioned its delay. Northeast parties like the Naga People’s Front and Mizo National Front agreed it could improve voter representation. Some smaller parties from Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh feared legitimate outfits might be penalised for temporary inactivity caused by local unrest or lack of funds. Expert Analysis Political scientist Dr. Sushmita Dev observed that this reflects a broader trend of financial scrutiny in Indian politics, especially regarding electoral bonds. Governance analyst Sanjoy Hazarika noted that in smaller states, clearing inactive parties reduces political clutter and eases coalition-building. Public Response Reactions varied across India: In Guwahati’s Beltola market, traders recalled some delisted outfits contesting local polls decades ago. On social media, urban voters framed the move as part of an anti-corruption drive, though some warned of the risk of politically motivated removals. The Road Ahead Delisted parties may apply for re-registration if they meet all legal requirements, submit pending reports, and demonstrate political activity.The updated list of registered parties is expected in September 2025 ahead of state elections in Assam and Manipur, potentially reshaping multi-cornered contests. Conclusion This mass delisting is one of the ECI’s biggest single-day actions in years. While it strengthens electoral integrity and financial transparency, the real challenge will be balancing reform with the need to protect grassroots democratic movements. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Election Commission of India Delists 334 Unrecognised Political Parties Across the Country Sadalaw • August 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments INDIA Bloc Strategy Meeting Held at Rahul Gandhi’s Residence Sadalaw • August 9, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments India–US Trade Talks Collapse Over Agriculture Disputes Sadalaw • August 9, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Election Commission of India Delists 334 Unrecognised Political Parties Across the Country Read More »

Supreme Court Directs ECI to Consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards for Bihar Voter Roll Revision

Trending Today Supreme Court Directs ECI to Consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards for Bihar Voter Roll Revision Supreme Court to Hear Cartoonist Hemant Malviya’s Bail Plea in PM Modi Caricature Case LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV BIDYA LOK LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT EXCELSIS ENERGY JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CYS LEGAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT BMW GROUP FINANCIAL SERVICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEX CHAMBERS INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NM LAW CHAMBERS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SILVER PUSH LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDI-GENIUS CONSULTING INC. Supreme Court Directs ECI to Consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards for Bihar Voter Roll Revision Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 13 JULY 2025 The Supreme Court has instructed the Election Commission of India to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards during the Bihar voter roll revision process, aiming to prevent disenfranchisement ahead of the 2025 Assembly elections. Supreme Court Steps In on Bihar Voter Roll Controversy On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India granted the Election Commission of India (ECI) the go-ahead to proceed with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, ahead of the upcoming 2025 Assembly elections. However, the Court issued a crucial instruction: to avoid the exclusion of legitimate voters, the ECI must consider including identity documents such as the Aadhaar card, Voter ID (EPIC), and ration card during the voter verification process. Petitioners Raise Concerns Over Disenfranchisement The voter list revision process, officially announced on June 24, faced legal challenge from petitioners who argued it posed an unfair burden on voters, particularly those from marginalised and underprivileged communities. They warned that the short timeline—just weeks before the draft list is due on August 1, with elections expected in October or November—could lead to widespread disenfranchisement. Court Calls for Inclusive and Transparent Electoral Practices Although the Supreme Court declined to halt the voter list revision altogether, it emphasized the need for an inclusive approach. The bench advised the ECI to assess the usefulness of identity documents like Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards, and to provide a valid explanation if it chooses to exclude any. This move aims to prevent rigid interpretations of the SIR guidelines that could potentially disqualify eligible voters from being added to the revised electoral rolls. Legal Concerns Over ECI’s Powers and Timeline The Court also expressed doubts over whether the ECI had the constitutional authority to initiate the SIR without explicit parliamentary backing. It questioned whether a rapid revision under these conditions can uphold the principles of free and fair elections—a core component of India’s democratic framework. What’s Next: Key Dates to Watch July 21, 2025: ECI must file its counter-affidavit July 28, 2025: Follow-up hearing in the Supreme Court August 1, 2025: Deadline for releasing the draft electoral roll The Court’s guidance is expected to influence not just Bihar but also electoral roll practices across India. Political Reaction and Broader Implications Opposition parties have welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim directions, calling them a positive step toward protecting democratic rights and ensuring electoral transparency. This case is likely to set a nationwide precedent for how voter roll revisions are carried out, prompting a broader dialogue on inclusivity, documentation requirements, and voter rights in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Directs ECI to Consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards for Bihar Voter Roll Revision Sadalaw • July 13, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court to Hear Cartoonist Hemant Malviya’s Bail Plea in PM Modi Caricature Case Sadalaw • July 13, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Upholds Free Speech in Journalist Sedition Case Sadalaw • July 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Directs ECI to Consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards for Bihar Voter Roll Revision Read More »

One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism?

Trending Today One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? Madras High Court Rules False Sexual Allegations as Mental Cruelty, Grants Divorce to Husband President Approves Inquiry Into Former CJI D Y Chandrachud Over Alleged Misuse of Power Bokaro Launches Mobile Land Court to Deliver Justice in Rural Jharkhand Supreme Court Questions Centre on Surrogacy Rules 2023: Challenge Highlights Reproductive Rights and Constitutional Concerns Delhi High Court Restrains Unauthorized Use of “TATA” Trademark in Domain Names Bombay High Court Halts BMC Demolition Over Alleged Illegal Structures Amid Procedural Dispute Madras High Court Seeks Tamil Nadu’s Response on Facial Recognition in Policing Amid Privacy Concerns Madras High Court Seeks Tamil Nadu Govt’s Response on PIL Challenging Facial Recognition in Policing Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Constitutional Right, Even for Third Child One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? 16 June 2025 REHA BHARGAV Discover the key arguments for and against the proposed One Nation, One Election policy in India. Is it a path to constitutional reform or a risk to democratic diversity? Explore its implications, challenges, and viable alternatives in this insightful analysis. Introduction: Understanding the One Nation, One Election Concept India, the world’s largest democracy, continues to innovate its electoral systems. A significant proposal in recent years is One Nation, One Election — a model where elections for both the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies are conducted simultaneously. While the idea promises financial efficiency and administrative ease, it also poses serious questions about India’s federal integrity and democratic diversity. Is this a step toward much-needed constitutional reform or a disruption of the democratic ethos? Historical Background: When Simultaneous Elections Were a Reality India conducted synchronized elections in 1951–52, 1957, 1962, and 1967. However, this cycle was disrupted in the late 1960s due to premature dissolutions of state assemblies and the Lok Sabha, particularly during political crises in 1968–69 and 1970. Since then, election cycles have fragmented, leading to year-round polling and continuous deployment of administrative and security resources. The One Nation, One Election proposal aims to restore and modernize this earlier model for today’s complex political environment. Why the Idea Is Gaining Momentum The Indian government has revived interest in simultaneous elections, even appointing a high-level committee to study its feasibility. Some of the major reasons for this renewed push include: Continuous election cycles keeping political parties in perpetual campaign mode. Frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct disrupting governance. Rising financial and administrative costs of conducting separate elections. In this context, One Nation, One Election is seen as a strategy for efficient governance, fiscal discipline, and political stability. Vision Behind One Nation, One Election The core vision of this reform includes:  Reducing Election CostsSimultaneous polls would significantly reduce financial strain on the Election Commission of India and public resources.  Minimizing Governance DisruptionFewer elections mean fewer interruptions due to the Model Code of Conduct, enabling smoother execution of public policies.  Ensuring Political StabilityAligned election cycles could reduce mid-term collapses and encourage long-term governance.  Boosting Voter EngagementA unified election event may lead to higher voter turnout and public awareness.  Fostering National IntegrationSynchronizing elections may align central and state agendas, reinforcing national unity. Arguments in Favour: A Move Toward Constitutional Reform  Cost EfficiencyMultiple elections throughout the year drain public funds. Synchronization could drastically lower these expenses.  Administrative ConvenienceFewer deployments of personnel and security forces ease the burden on infrastructure.  Reduced Governance DisruptionsFewer election-related pauses mean continuous policy implementation.  Long-Term Policy FocusGovernments can focus more on governance rather than campaigning.  Enhanced Voter TurnoutA consolidated election day could improve voter participation.  Curbing PopulismReduced election frequency may push parties toward long-term reforms instead of short-term populism.  Strengthening National CoherenceA unified election process might encourage a more cohesive national political narrative. Challenges and Criticisms: Risk of Electoral Disruption  Federal ImbalanceStates may lose control over their individual electoral timelines, weakening federalism.  Mid-Term CollapsesDissolutions of assemblies mid-term would break the cycle, complicating continuity.  National vs Regional IssuesSimultaneous elections could dilute local issues, favoring national narratives.  Voter OverloadToo many choices at once may confuse voters and reduce focus on individual candidates.  Electoral InequalityRegional or smaller parties may struggle to compete with national parties.  Logistical OverstretchManaging simultaneous polls across India’s vast and diverse landscape is a colossal administrative challenge.  Democratic DilutionMega-elections might diminish community-level engagement and local issues. Legal and Practical Challenges To implement One Nation, One Election, significant amendments to the Constitution of India—including Articles 83, 85, 172, and 174—are necessary. These require not only a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also ratification by at least half the state legislatures. Practical complications include: Managing early dissolutions of assemblies or Parliament. The risk of imposing President’s Rule to maintain synchronization. Enormous logistical coordination required by the Election Commission. Political consensus, especially among regional parties concerned about autonomy, remains a major hurdle. Alternatives to One Nation, One Election  Clustered ElectionsGroup states with similar election cycles for staggered synchronization.  Fixed Election DatesCreate a structured calendar to reduce unpredictability while maintaining autonomy.  Staggered Election WindowsHold elections within fixed time frames instead of exact dates.  Election Infrastructure UpgradesEnhance the capabilities of the Election Commission for efficient multi-election management.  Political ReformsStrengthen anti-defection laws to prevent early dissolutions.  Phased ImplementationStart by synchronizing a few states and expand gradually based on results. Conclusion: Reform or Risk? The proposal for One Nation, One Election presents a double-edged sword. It offers efficiency, cost reduction, and focused governance, yet threatens federal autonomy and electoral diversity. Legal amendments, logistical coordination, and political consensus are essential for any successful implementation. Instead of a hasty overhaul, a gradual, inclusive approach with interim reforms—like clustered elections and fixed dates—may better serve India’s democratic and federal structure. Ultimately, reforms must enhance, not compromise, the democratic fabric of the nation. References: – Election Commission of India – Indian Constitution – PRS Legislative Research – India Today – Firstpost – AAP – ORF – News18 – iPleaders – The Hindu – Times of India Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada

One Nation, One Election: A Constitutional Reform or Threat to India’s Federalism? Read More »

Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained

Trending Today Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Delhi High Court Sends Dispute Over Netflix’s ‘Emergency’ Film and Coomi Kapoor’s Book to Mediation Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court reshaped the appointment process for the Election Commission of India in the landmark Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India case (2023). Learn what this means for Indian democracy, electoral transparency, and constitutional law. Introduction: Reassessing the Independence of the Election Commission of India The Election Commission of India (ECI) is crucial to ensuring free and fair elections, as mandated by Article 324 of the Constitution of India. However, the method of appointing Election Commissioners lacked statutory clarity—until the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India case. Background of the Case What Prompted the Legal Challenge? In January 2015, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Anoop Baranwal, arguing that the appointment process—where the President of India acts on the advice of the Prime Minister—was unconstitutional. This PIL was consolidated with related petitions by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, advocating a more transparent, independent selection process for the ECI. Legal Issues Raised Key Constitutional Questions Does the current method of appointing Election Commissioners violate the Right to Equality under Article 14? Does it compromise the Right to Free and Fair Elections as a basic feature of the Constitution? Arguments from Both Sides Petitioners’ Standpoint Absence of a statutory framework violates constitutional principles. Existing process allows executive dominance, undermining electoral independence. Recommended a selection committee including the Prime Minister of India, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India. Respondent’s (Union of India) View Argued under the doctrine of Separation of Powers. Emphasized that the judiciary must not override legislative or executive authority. Claimed the ECI has maintained its independence under the current appointment process. Supreme Court Judgment: A Landmark Decision (March 2, 2023) The five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, delivered a transformative judgment: Directed the formation of a selection committee with the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India to recommend ECI appointments until Parliament passes a law. Called for a dedicated Secretariat for the ECI, funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. Emphasized the need for transparency, independence, and institutional accountability. The case is reported as 2023 INSC 190. Impact on Indian Democracy Why This Judgment Matters This decision is a pivotal moment in ensuring the autonomy of the Election Commission. It supports the constitutional framework that democratic institutions must remain independent from executive overreach. Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, had previously recommended: Budgetary independence through the Consolidated Fund of India. Establishing a secretariat modeled on that of the Supreme Court of India and Parliament. Conclusion: Strengthening Electoral Integrity in India The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Anoop Baranwal case marks a historic step in reinforcing democratic values. It lays the foundation for a more transparent and balanced electoral system and boosts public trust in democratic institutions. The judgment stands as a major reform in constitutional law in India and ensures that electoral integrity is upheld through a genuinely independent Election Commission. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Read More »

Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections

Trending Today Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Supreme Court Urges BCI to Mandate AIBE Status in Vakalatnamas for Lawyers Enrolled After 2010 Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Uttarakhand High Court Flags Misuse of ST Certificates Based on Residency in Tribal Areas Jharkhand Government Launches Health Insurance Scheme for Advocates and Families Delhi High Court Directs NLU Consortium to Ensure CLAT Access Is Not Denied Due to Language Barriers India to Conduct Largest Civil Defense Drill Since 1971 Amid Rising Tensions with Pakistan Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections MAHI SINHA 07 May 2025 Shiv Sena (UBT) urges the Supreme Court of India to urgently hear its challenge over the iconic ‘bow and arrow’ election symbol awarded to the Eknath Shinde faction ahead of Maharashtra’s local body polls. Shiv Sena (UBT) Seeks Urgent Supreme Court Hearing on Election Symbol Dispute As the upcoming Maharashtra local body elections draw near, the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)—commonly known as Shiv Sena (UBT)—has requested the Supreme Court of India to expedite its hearing on the ongoing electoral symbol dispute. Background of the Symbol Dispute: Shiv Sena vs. Shinde Faction In the ongoing case of Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Ors., the Election Commission of India officially recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the legitimate Shiv Sena and allocated the iconic bow and arrow election symbol to them. In response, the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction has approached the apex court to challenge this decision. Kapil Sibal Pushes for Swift Judicial Review Representing Shiv Sena (UBT), senior advocate Kapil Sibal addressed the matter before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, arguing that the urgency of the upcoming elections demands a prompt hearing. “Your lordships have ordered local body elections. Now there’s urgency,” Sibal emphasized in court. 2023 Constitutional Bench Ruling as Legal Basis Sibal grounded his argument in the Supreme Court’s 2023 Constitutional Bench judgment, which asserted that legislative majority alone is insufficient to determine the legitimacy of a political party. He claimed that the Election Commission had incorrectly relied solely on parliamentary strength when awarding the symbol to the Shinde faction. Supreme Court Responds with Caution Ahead of Holidays Justice Surya Kant noted that it might not be feasible to list the case before the court’s holiday recess. Sibal reiterated his reliance on the Constitution Bench’s ruling, pressing for urgency in the matter. Justice Kant questioned the necessity of expedited proceedings, asking why the Shiv Sena (UBT) couldn’t contest with their currently allotted symbol. “Each of you has a symbol,” he remarked. Sibal countered, “But he has the original symbol of Shiv Sena.” Symbolism and Precedents: Drawing from the NCP Case Sibal argued that interim relief was granted in a similar situation involving the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), implying the same could be applied here. However, Justice Kant reminded the court that the NCP case involved specific conditions and that the local body electorate may not prioritize symbols as significantly as expected. Supreme Court May Consider Listing Case During Vacation Concluding the hearing, Justice Kant responded to Sibal’s call for urgency: “I haven’t looked at it from that viewpoint… We’ll do our best to learn. We can put it on vacation if it’s that urgent.” Conclusion: Awaiting Clarity Ahead of Crucial Elections As Maharashtra gears up for its critical local body elections, the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s plea highlights ongoing tensions over party identity and electoral legitimacy. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could set a significant precedent not just for this case, but for future disputes involving party symbols and internal splits. Until then, both factions will have to navigate the political landscape with their current positions—while the final verdict remains pending.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Urges BCI to Mandate AIBE Status in Vakalatnamas for Lawyers Enrolled After 2010 Supreme Court Urges BCI to Mandate AIBE Status in Vakalatnamas for Lawyers Enrolled After 2010 Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Read More »

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312

Trending Today ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 The Role of Intellectual Property in Promoting Innovation in India Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 13 Mar 2025 Table of contents OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION ON DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN INDIA CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING CONCLUSION: FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SSC ONLINE SC VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT REFERENCES OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS The case of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. UOI was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR, a non-political arrangement occupied towards transparency and accountability in Indian elections. The basic objective concerning this case search out challenge Section 33B (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA), that admitted governmental bodies to withhold facts about their capital beginnings, containing gifts taken from alien companies or things. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE The petition was ground for one Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), two non-administration arrangements active towards electoral corrects in the country. The case generally disputed sure supplying of the Representation of People Act, 1951, that admitted political bodies to accept unknown gifts from things or associations through Electoral Bonds. This practice produced concerns about transparency and responsibility in governmental capital, that are critical details of a fair and democratic electing process. The culture chief until this case may be tracked back to the approvals made for one Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections in 1998.In order to address these issues, the commission submitted measures to a degree state capital of elections, revelation of electing expenditures by competitors, and better investigation over choosing loan. In line with these pieces of advice, Parliament passed important corrections to the Representation of People Act in 2002, individual being Section 29B (1) that made acquainted a new supplying admitting Electoral Bonds as an additional fashion for making gifts to governmental bodies. However, ADR and PUCL discussed that this correction was illegal as it went against fundamental law like transparency honestly existence, free and fair voting process sure-fire under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 respectively. They more argued that unknown gifts manage conceivably admit illegal services laundering actions through structure associations or external systems outside any responsibility. In reaction, the principal management protected their resolution to introduce Electoral Bonds by way of to advance gifts through legal and obvious channels. Thus, this case nurtured important questions about the balance between secrecy and transparency in electing capital, and allure affect fair and self-governing elections in India. The outcome concerning this case has the potential to shape future tactics had connection with voting loan and advance greater responsibility between governmental bodies and contenders. KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE The case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Another v Union of India and so forth SSC Online SC has collect significant consideration and bred main questions about the duty of services in Indian campaigning. At the heart of this milestone case, there are various key performers the one has existed complicated in differing capacities. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): ADR is a non-political institution that was made in 1999 accompanying a dream to advance transparency and accountability in Indian government. Union of India: The Union of India refers to the main administration in this place case as it arrange accomplishing standards related to governmental capital and choosing processes. The Ministry of Law & Justice shows the joining before the Supreme Court as respondent no.1. Election Commission of India (ECI): In allure answer to this case, ECI contended that binding announcement grant permission bring about harassment or revenge against benefactors by rival governmental bodies. Law Commission: Law Commission refers to an executive party start apiece Government periodically burdened accompanying learning allowable issues had connection with choosing laws containing campaign finance rules. 5.Member Secretaries – Screen Scrutiny Committee (SSC) & Financial Affairs Subcommittee (FAS): These juries were comprised by ECI later taking afflictions against sure politicians and person in government who makes laws the one had purportedly taken different offerings outside prior consent from ECI. 6.Candidates/Petitioners: The main petitioners in this place case are ADR and Common Cause, presented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The top court has admitted six additional individual competitors to intervene in the case, disputing their right to see the beginnings of capital taken by governmental parties. LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES The permissible battle betwixt the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Union of India, and so forth, concerning connected to the internet examinations transported apiece Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has been a continuous issue. On individual help, ADR contends that the use of science in administering exams poses a risk to bidders’ data freedom and solitude. ADR’s debate is established Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that guarantees similarity

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 Read More »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024.

Trending Today Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU Role of technology in transforming the Indian judiciary COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024 07 Mar 2025 Table of contents Case Summary Issues in the case Case Analysis Specific Direction Conclusion Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2017               Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr.                  …Petitioner          Versus         Union of India & Ors.                                      …Respondents Date of judgement:- 15th february, 2024   Presiding judges:-  DY Chandrachud CJ., Sanjiv Khanna BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ… Case Summary:- The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional, holding that anonymous political donations violate the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. A 5-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a unanimous verdict with two concurring opinions. The Court ruled that transparency in political funding is crucial for an informed electorate and that the scheme’s anonymity undermines democratic principles by enabling quid pro quo arrangements. The petitioners challenged the scheme’s validity under Article 32, contesting amendments made through the Finance Act, 2017, and its classification as a Money Bill. The Court analyzed the right to information jurisprudence, emphasizing the link between economic and political inequality. It found that financial contributions to political parties significantly impact voters’ decision-making and that anonymity in funding hinders public scrutiny of potential policy influences. Rejecting the government’s argument that the scheme prevents black money in elections, the Court noted that alternative legal mechanisms, such as electronic transfers and Electoral Trusts, provide better transparency. Applying the proportionality test, it ruled that the scheme is not the least restrictive measure for achieving the stated objective. Consequently, the Court directed the immediate cessation of electoral bond issuance, mandated the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose details of past bond transactions to the Election Commission of India (ECI), and instructed the ECI to publish this data on its website. Bonds still within their validity period were ordered to be returned and refunded. Issues in the case:- Whether the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties according to the electoral bond scheme and the amendments to Section 29-C of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 13-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is violative of the right to information guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) in the Constitution. Whether unlimited corporate funding of the political parties as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act violates the principles of free and fair election under Article 14 of the Constitution. Case Analysis:- The Supreme Court examined whether the Right to Information (RTI) under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes access to details about financial contributions made to political parties. In doing so, the Court divided its jurisprudence on RTI into two phases. It emphasized that the RTI is not confined solely to government-related matters or public affairs but extends to information that is crucial for strengthening participatory democracy. Given that political parties play a vital role in the electoral process, as recognized in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, transparency regarding their funding is essential for voters to make informed choices. The Court acknowledged that political equality is a fundamental constitutional principle, ensuring that both the electorate and elected representatives are treated fairly. However, despite constitutional guarantees, political inequality persists, largely due to economic disparities. Those with greater financial resources often have a disproportionate influence over political decisions, thereby undermining democratic fairness. The Court underscored the need to assess the significance of financial transparency in political funding, particularly in light of India’s legal framework governing political party finances. A major concern highlighted was the potential for financial contributions to create quid pro quo arrangements, where monetary support to a political party translates into favorable policy changes or licensing benefits for the donor. This close connection between financial power and political decision-making raises concerns about undue influence on governance. Voter access to information regarding political donations is crucial for evaluating whether policymaking is being swayed by financial contributions. The Union of India (UOI) contended that political parties receiving contributions through electoral bonds remained unaware of donor identities, as the bonds did not display names and banks were prohibited from disclosing this information. The Court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that the scheme was not foolproof. It identified several loopholes that allowed political parties to discern the identities of donors, thereby negating the claim of anonymity. Ultimately, the Court ruled that information regarding political funding is indispensable for voters to exercise their franchise effectively. By anonymizing political donations, the electoral bond scheme infringed upon voters’ right to information, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a). The Court applied the proportionality test to determine whether this infringement could be justified. Additionally, the Court examined whether restricting voter access to financial contributions was justified in the interest of curbing black money in elections. Applying the proportionality standard, it assessed whether the electoral bond scheme was the least restrictive means to achieve this goal. The Court concluded that the scheme failed this test, as alternative legal mechanisms such as contributions through cheques, bank drafts, and electronic transfers already existed to address concerns related to

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Read More »