Showing posts with label 1951. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1951. Show all posts

Saturday, March 15, 2025

Duplicate Voter ID Fraud: Discussion on "EPIC number duplication SCAM", "the BIGGEST ELECTORAL FRAUD" awaited in Parliament, Election Commission yet to probe American funding claims

The credibility of elections in India depends entirely upon the impartiality and credibility of the Election Commission of India to ensure a level playing field to the political parties and candidates. Opposition parties are being displaced link by 12-digit Aadhaar to Voter ID

On March 10, 2025, Harivansh, Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha observed: "The notices of Shri Tiruchi Siva, Shri Sandosh Kumar P, Shri Vaiko, Shri P.P. Suneer and Shri P. Wilson have demanded discussion over the concerns regarding upcoming delimitation exercise to Southern States. The notices of Shri Saket Gokhale, Shrimati Sagarika Ghose, Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Ajay Makan have demanded discussion over the alleged lapse of the Election Commission in issuance of multiple duplicate EPIC across the States." EPIC refers to Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers. 

Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha refused to allow discussion saying, "Members may recall the detailed rulings of Rule 267 imparted by the hon. Chairman, Rajya Sabha, on 8th December, 2022, and 19th December, 2022....The same have been reiterated by the hon. Chairman a number of times....Since these notices do not conform to the directives imparted by the hon. Chairman, the same are declined."

On March 10, 2015 Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha observed: "Questions are being raised across the country on the voter's list. In every opposition, questions are raised on the voter's list. The entire opposition is just saying that there should be a discussion on the voter's list." 

During the Zero Hour discussion in the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition pointed out that voter lists were being "twisted" across the country which undermines electoral democracy. When Om Birla, the Speaker of Lok Sabha asked him whether the government drew out the voter lists. The Leader of Opposition said that while the government may not be drawing the voter lists, questions are being raised about voter lists across the country.

On March 10, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Kalyan Banerjee raised the issue of large-scale duplication of EPIC voter identity card numbers across states during Zero Hour mention. He informed Lok Sabha, "Madam, the faulty voter list is a serious concern in the country itself. Our Chief Minister first flagged the issue of numerous instances of duplicate voter cards. The explanation given by the Election Commission is clearly a breach of Rule 20 of the Election Conduct Rules itself. These things have been happening for the last few years. Earlier, it was not there. That is why there is an increase in votes. In West Bengal, the voters are coming from Gujarat and Haryana. This is not tolerable. The Election Commission all the time says that they are conducting elections in a transparent and fair manner. It is clear that there had been no transparent elections in the last few years. There had been no fair elections in the last few years, not at all. The Election Commission has not acted properly, and appropriate proceedings should be brought against the for that reason." 

On March 10, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Sougata Ray raised the issue of large-scale duplication of EPIC voter identity card numbers across states during Zero Hour mention. He informed Lok Sabha, "Sir, with your permission, I would like to raise the matter of false voter lists all over India, which has been pointed out by our Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee. In her recent speech, Ms. Mamata Banerjee showed the papers where it was seen that the same EPIC numbers had voters both in Bengal and Haryana. In Bengal, it was in the district of Murshidabad. Again, she showed voter cards which had same EPIC numbers in Bardhaman and in Haryana. This shows that all is not well in the state of Denmark. There are some serious flaws. This has been pointed out earlier with regard to Maharashtra voter list which had an inflated voter list. This was pointed out in the list of Haryana. Now, they are preparing to jump on Bengal and Assam also which have elections next year. Sir, with your permission, I demand that the total voter list should be thoroughly revised and the Election Commission should answer to the country why such mistakes have occurred in the voter list. They have informed our Party that they will let us know within three months. We shall meet on behalf of the Party. Our people will meet the newly appointed Chief Election Commissioner, who was earlier Secretary of the Cooperation Ministry under Mr. Amit Shah. We hope that he replies properly. Our agitation on this point will continue.…You know that the Election Commission is under the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. He informed the Speaker, Lok Sabha that the Election Commission is under the government. It implies that it has a role in the preparation of the voter list.  

On March 11, 2025,  All India Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Sagarika Ghose raised serious questions the following questions that Election Commission of India cannot ignore: How many duplicate Voter ID cards exist?, If there are changes in the electoral roll, why hasn’t a separate roll been published?, Why is there no action despite credible evidence of Aadhaar cards being cloned for fake voter registrations?

On March 11, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Kirti Azad said, "In just three months, Maharashtra saw 40 lakh new voters added ahead of the elections. How is that even possible? EPIC numbers, meant to be unique, are now linked to multiple individuals. Even Aadhaar cards are being cloned! And now, @ECISVEEP wants 90 days to investigate. Does that mean they already know the scale of this fraud? How many fake cards exist? Who is behind this massive electoral malpractice?"

Kirti Azad referring to the Press Note dated March 7, 2025 issued by the Election Commission of India entitled "Commission to address decades long issue of duplicate EPIC numbers within next 3 months" The note reads: "Electoral Roll updation takes place under DEO & ERO with continuous public and political parties participation India’s Electoral Rolls are the biggest database of electors across the globe with over 99 crore registered electors. In addition to the continuous updation of Electoral Rolls, the Election Commission conducts Annual Special Summary Revision (SSR) exercise every year for updation of electoral rolls which happens during the period of October-December every year with publication of final rolls in the following month of January. For the poll going States/UTs, SSR is also conducted prior to the elections. For the recently concluded SSR 2025, the schedule was issued on August 7, 2024 and the final rolls were published during Jan 6-10, 2025 and the participatory and transparent process is enumerated below:
1. At every booth, a Booth Level Officer (BLO) is appointed by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) amongst the officials of the state government.
2. At every booth, political parties also have the right to appoint Booth Level Agents (BLAs).
3. All BLAs have the right to verify the electoral roll of the concerned booth and raise a complaint for anomaly, if any.
4. After house-to-house field verification, the concerned BLO submits the recommendations to the concerned ERO.
5. After taking into cognizance the above facts, ERO verifies the details of each elector for updation of electoral rolls.
6. The draft electoral rolls prepared are published on the website and also made available to political parties and the public.
7. Only after verification of draft Electoral rolls and settling any claims and objections received during a one month period, final rolls are published which are made available to political parties and also available polling station wise on ECI website (https://voters.eci.gov.in/download-eroll).
8. If any person has any objection, he has the option to file the first appeal to the DM/District Collector/Executive Magistrate under section 24(a) of RP Act 1950.
9. Even if the person is not satisfied with the decision of the first appellate authority, a second appeal to Chief Electoral Officer of the concerned State/UT under section 24(b) of RP Act 1950 can be filed.
For the recently concluded SSR, the relevant details as reported by CEOs of States/UTs are available at Annexure A.
As regards the issue of duplicate EPIC numbers, the Commission has already taken cognizance of the matter. Irrespective of an EPIC number, an elector who is linked to the electoral roll of a particular polling
station can cast his vote at that polling station only and nowhere else. Sample enquiry of over 100 electors reveals that electors with duplicate EPIC numbers are genuine electors. Since the allotment of EPIC series in the year 2000 to the States/UTs, some EROs did not use the correct series. The issue of allotment of duplicate numbers due to incorrect series across States/UTs could not have been detected as the States/UTs were independently managing the electoral roll databases. The Commission has now decided to resolve this long pending issue after detailed discussions within the technical teams and concerned CEOs in the next three months by ensuring a unique national EPIC number to the existing electors having a duplicate EPIC number and for future electors as well." 

On March 11, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress said:"The EPIC number duplication scam is a calculated assault on democracy. Issuing multiple voter IDs with the same number is a direct violation of electoral laws, yet  @ECISVEEP has turned a blind eye for years. Why was this massive fraud kept under wraps until Smt. @MamataOfficial exposed it? And how does ECI plan to fix it in three months when it failed to even acknowledge the issue for years? Our MPs confronted the Chief Election Commissioner today, demanding accountability. But when faced with hard questions, all they had were vague, evasive answers. The fight to protect free and fair elections is on, and we won’t back down!"

Claiming the EPIC number duplication SCAM to be the BIGGEST ELECTORAL FRAUD of our times, a 10-member delegation of All India Trinamool Congress MPs met Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner on March 11, 2025 submitted a letter demanding: Why was this buried for years until Smt. @MamataOfficial  exposed it? How can ECI "fix" it in 3 months when no action was taken for years? How many duplicate EPICs exist, and in which states?Will voters with duplicate EPICs be disenfranchised? How is Aadhaar cloning impacting voter registration and electoral rolls?" The letter is available at https://x.com/AITCofficial/status/1899463473970774255

On March 11, 2025, Election Commission of India issued a Press Note entitled "EC invites Party Presidents and senior leaders for interaction to further strengthen electoral processes within legal framework" The Note reads: "The Election Commission of India has invited suggestions from all National and State political parties by April 30, 2025 for any unresolved issues at the level of ERO, DEO or the CEO, as the case may be." In an individual letter issued to political parties on March 11, the Commission also envisaged an interaction with the Party Presidents and senior members of the party, at a mutually convenient time, to further strengthen electoral processes in accordance with the established law. Earlier, during an ECI conference last week, Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar had instructed CEOs, DEOs and EROs of all States/UTs to hold regular interactions with political parties, resolve any suggestions received in such meetings strictly within the legal framework already in place and submit an action taken report to the Commission by March 31, 2025. The Commission also urged political parties to proactively use this mechanism of decentralised engagement. Political parties are one of the key stakeholders amongst 28 stakeholders identified by the Commission as per the Constitution and statutory framework covering all aspects of electoral processes. The Commission in its letter to political parties also noted that Representation of the People Act 1950 & 1951; Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Instructions, Manuals and Handbooks issued by Election Commission of India from time to time (available on ECI website) have established a decentralised, robust and transparent legal framework for holding free and fair elections."

On March 12, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party Leader in Rajya Sabha, Derek O' Brien referred to "enough precedents" to demand an open discussion on the EPIC number duplication issue on the floor of Parliament next week under Rule 176 for 3 minutes if the it has not been allowed under Rule 267. He underlined that 7-8 parties are demanding it. 

Earlier, on March 3, 2025, Empowered Action Group of Leaders and Experts (EAGLE) of Indian National Congress issued a release on the subject of Election Commission's complicity in voter list manipulation. It reads: "There are some startling developments on the issue of voter list manipulation that have surfaced. The same voter id number is being used for several voters, both from the same constituency in the same state as well as from other states. This is utterly shocking. A unique voter id for every Indian voter is the fundamental requirement and premise of a clean voter list. Multiple voters having the same voter id number is  as  bizarre  as  multiple  vehicles  bearing  the  same  registration  number in  the  country. It is unheard of in any electoral democracy.Back  in  December  2024,  the  Congress  party  pointed  out  huge  irregularities  and  abnormalities  in  voter  lists  for  the  Maharashtra  2024  Vidhan  Sabha  election.  It  is  both  a  logical  and  statistical  absurdity  that  the  Election  Commission  registered  more new net voters (40 lakhs) in five months between the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections in 2024 than they did in the entire five-year period between 2019 and 2024 (32 lakhs). This  was  substantiated  through  ground  reports  in  some  constituencies  where  thousands of voters were added to the rolls from just one building or brought in from other  states.  It  was  further  shown  that  suspiciously  most  of  these  new  voters  enrolled  seem  to  have  voted  only  for  the  BJP  led  alliance  in  Maharashtra,  thereby  tilting the eventual outcome in their favour.The Hon. Leader of Opposition Shri. Rahul Gandhi raised this issue on the floor of the  Lok  Sabha  and  demanded  voter  lists  of  Maharashtra.  There  was  a  joint  press  conference  held  by  the  Opposition  alliance  parties  of  Maharashtra  on  the  same  issue.  The  Election  Commission’s  stoic  silence  has only  lent  credence  to  their complicity in voter list manipulation."

It also stated: "When confronted with proof of same voter id number used by multiple voters, the Election  Commission  initially responded  claiming  that  a  voter  id  number  may  be  the same across states, but it is unique to a particular state. Even that turned out to be a blatant lie as there are cases of the same voter id number used by several voters in the same state and in the same constituency. After this was pointed out, there has been pin drop silence.It is elementary knowledge that a person who can legally migrate to any state of the country must have a unique voter id number throughout the country. The Election Commission   cannot   feign   ignorance   or   incompetence   in   this   matter.   It   is   a   deliberate act of voter list manipulation to aid the ruling party and thwart the idea of free and fair elections.The  cover  is  now  blown.  It  is  clear  that  the  ruling  BJP  wins  or  attempts  to  win  elections by manipulating voter lists in connivance with the Election Commission. Which  is  why  the  process  of  appointment  of  the  Election  Commissioners  is  so  critical to the Narendra Modi government that it subverted a Supreme Court ruling to have a balanced committee to appoint Election Commissioners.This  is  a  grave  danger  to  the  very  idea  of  India  as  an  electoral  democracy.  This  transcends  political  parties  and  politics.  Babasaheb  Ambedkar  fought  for  the  setting  up  of  an  independent  Election  Commission  to  precisely  resist  this  urge  of  executive  interference  in  elections.  The  Congress  party  will  not  let  this  issue  fade  away and is actively working on seeking remedy through legal, political, legislative and any other means."

Earlier on March 2, 2025, Election Commission of India issued a Press Note entitled "EC clarifies that duplication in EPIC number does not imply duplicate/fake voters." It reads: The Election Commission has taken cognizance of certain social media posts and media reports flagging the issue of electors of two different states having identical EPIC numbers. In this regard, it is clarified that while EPIC numbers of some of the electors may be identical, the other details including demographic details, Assembly Constituency and polling booth are different for the electors with the same EPIC number. Irrespective of the EPIC number, any elector can cast a vote only at their designated polling station in their respective Constituency in their State/UT where they are enrolled in the electoral roll and nowhere else. The allotment of identical EPIC number/series to some electors from different States/UTs was due to a decentralized and manual mechanism being followed prior to shifting of the electoral roll database of all States/UTs to the ERONET platform. This resulted in certain State/UT CEO offices using the same EPIC alphanumeric series and leaving a scope for the possibility of duplicate EPIC numbers being allotted to electors in different Assembly Constituencies in different States/UTs. However, to allay any apprehensions, the Commission has decided to ensure allotment of unique EPIC number to registered electors. Any case of duplicate EPIC number will be rectified by allotting a unique EPIC number. The ERONET 2.0 platform will be updated to aid and assist in this process."

Responding to the Press Note of the Election Commission of India, on March 7, 2025, EAGLE of INC issued a release on the subject of duplicitous response by the Election Commission to the issue of duplicate voter- ID numbers. It reads:" The Election Commission of India {ECI} has issued a duplicitous response on the issue of same voter Ins being allotted to multiple voters. The ECI, in its response, hides behind its processes to offer a feeble explanation. Shockingly but not surprisingly, the ECI has been forced to admit that its voter lists are flawed and not trustworthy.  The Election Commission, in a letter issued on September 18th 2008 to Chief Electoral Officers of all States, had said that `voter-IDs are unique'. However, the ECI today says, the issue of duplicate voter-IDs is a "decades long issue". Which statement of the ECI should the citizens of India believe? Why should an average Indian voter today trust the Election Commission?  Further, how is it that 17 years later, ECI speaks of constituting a body to clean up this process of multiple voter-IDs? Was the ECI then all along misrepresenting to the voters of India that the 'voter-IDs were unique'? If yes, then what are the other processes which ECI has been misrepresenting to its citizens? The initial response of the Election Commission to these questions was to defend itself by stating that this could happen only across states'. But there are instances with clear evidence of many voters with the same voter-ID in the same assembly constituency in the same state. Is the ECI then lying? As the issue of duplicate voter-IDs clearly is not across different states, but rather in the same state and, in many eases, in the same constituencies. There was a categorical demand made by the Hon. Leader of Opposition, Shri Rahul Gandhi, along with other concerned political parties, for the Election Commission to provide a copy of the Maharashtra voter rolls. Why has there been a deafening silence on this? This only reaffirms what the Congress party has been asserting- voter lists under the current ECI arc dubious and flawed. The Congress Party rejects this feeble and duplicitous explanation by the ECI and reiterates its demands to come clean on the sanctity of voter lists in India." 

Having witnessed disturbing trend during the tenure of Rajiv Kumar, thE 25th Chief Election Commissioner, Indian National Congress established EAGLE, an eight-member group on February 2, 2025 to maintain an oversight over elections in India and to ensure that the Election Commission of India upholds the integrity of the electoral process. Initially, the group was set up to inquire into electoral malpractices in the Haryana and Maharashtra Assembly elections in 2024. The EAGLE committee has been set up to observe elections closely and report its findings directly to the Leader of the Opposition. The committee was tasked to investigate alleged irregularities in Maharashtra’s voter lists. The panel includes Digvijaya Singh, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Praveen Chakravarty, Pawan Khera, Gurdeep Singh Sappal, Nitin Raut and Challa Vamshi Chand Reddy besides Ajay Maken. EAGLE is tasked "to monitor the conduct of free and fair elections by the Election Commission of India."

Gyanesh Kumar assumed charge as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner of India on February 19, 2025 in pursuance of the Ministry of Law & Justice Gazette notification dated February 17, 2025 after Rajiv Kumar demitted the office of Chief Election Commissioner on February 18, 2025. Rajiv Kumar had joined ECI as Election Commissioner on September 1, 2020 and he assumed charge as the 25th Chief Election Commissioner of India on May 15, 2022. He had a tenure of 4.5 years in the Election Commission. During his tenure, he completed one full electoral cycle with conduct of elections in 31 States/UTs, the Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections 2022, Lok Sabha elections 2024 and Rajya Sabha renewals. The February 17 Press Note underlined: "The elections were conducted peacefully with near zero repolls and incidents of violence" with the help of 5 million polling officials. 

In his 6-page long farewell speech, Rajiv Kumar said, "During peak polling or counting hours, a wave of fake allegations and rumors begins to spread across media and social media, misleading people and creating confusion. Narratives are deliberately set to distort facts....The live reporting of hearing of the long pending cases at critical junctures, sometimes fuel distrust that the petitioner intends to create. It would be beneficial if such proceedings are scheduled with due consideration to the election period, ensuring that the electoral process remains smooth and undisturbed. This is a specific expectation of India’s esteemed constitutional Courts. I say this while recording my gratitude for the higher judiciary of the country which has consistently acted as the guardian spirit of India’s electoral process and system." He added, "The Commission, as an institution, often finds itself unfairly blamed by those unwilling to accept electoral outcomes. A pressing concern is the growing tendency to target election officials in the aftermath of electoral contests. It is perceived as a convenient scapegoat. All candidates and parties are involved in every stage of the process with utmost transparency. Having participated in each step, without raising objections or filing appeals during the process, then attempting to create doubt afterward is undesirable. Dialogue should always be the preferred approach and while the Commission reacts with sagacity, stoicism and restraint, this is a disturbing trend and should be abandoned soon."

Voter ID Card

A Voter ID Card, also known as the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) is a photo identity card that is issued by the Election Commission of India to all individuals who are eligible to vote. It is issued under    Section 61(b), Representation of the People Act, 1951; Rule 28(2), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It serves as an identification proof when individuals cast their vote and prevents the impersonation of voters. Rule 28(1), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is relevant in this regard. The Voter ID Card contains the elector’s name, age and residence (among other particulars), and must have elector’s photograph affixed to it. It bears the signature of the Registration Officer i.e., the electoral registration officer of your constituency. This provision is under Rule 2(d), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The voter’s card is prepared in duplicate, and one copy is retained with the registration officer while the other is delivered to the voter. This is required under Rule 28(3), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Under Article 326 of the Constitution of India, one can enroll as a voter if one is an Indian citizen, has attained the age of 18 years and is ordinarily resident of the polling area of the constituency where one wants to be enrolled. Under Section 11A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, one can enroll as a voter if one is not disqualified to be enrolled as an elector. The disqualification may happen if one is convicted for an offence or one carries out corrupt practices. 

The Election Commission of India operates under the powers granted by Article 324 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is a body constitutionally empowered to conduct free and fair elections to the national, the State Legislative Assemblies, State Legislative Councils and the offices of the president and vice-president. 

The framers of the Constitution devote a special chapter to elections in Part XV of the Constitution. The draft of Article 289 of the Constitution of India, which on adoption later became the present Article 324 in Part XV of the Constitution was introduced in the Constituent Assembly on June 15, 1949 by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly. 

American funding to increase voter turnout in India

Notably, on March 10, 2025, Deputy Chairman observed: "Ramji Lal Suman wants discussion over the statement made by the US President regarding American funding to increase voter turnout in India." This discussion was also refused. The response of the Election Commission of India with regard to the claim of the US President is awaited.


Saturday, December 21, 2024

High Court directs Election Commission of India to supply entire videography, CCTV footage, copy of form 17C Part I, Part II of all legislative seats

Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the officials of the Election Commission of India to supply to me the entire videography, CCTV footage and copy of form 17C Part I and Part II of all 90 seats of the Haryana Legislative Assembly Elections of 2024. In Mehmood Pracha vs. Election Commission of India and others 2024), the petitioner contended that as per the provisions of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 under  the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the only distinction cast between a candidate and any other person is that while the documents have to be supplied free of cost to a Candidate who contested the election, the documents are to be supplied to any other person subject to payment of the fee as may be so prescribed.

Notably, Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules deals with the production and inspection of election papers. Rule 93(2) reads:"Subject to such conditions and to the payment of such fee as the Election Commission may direct,—(a) all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection; and (b) copies thereof shall on application be furnished." This provision was added in December 23, 1971.

Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules reads: "While in the custody of the district election officer or, as the case may be, the returning officer—(a) the packets of unused ballot papers with counterfoils attached thereto; (b) the packets of used ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected; (c) the packets of the counterfoils of used ballot papers; (cc) the printed paper slips sealed under the provisions of rule 57C; (d) the packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll or, as the case may be, the list maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 152; and 3 (dd) the packets containing registers of voters in form 17-A; (e) the packets of the declarations by electors and the attestation of their signatures, shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent court." The provision regarding Form 17-A was inserted on March 24, 1992 which became effective from July 17, 1992. 

Form 17C read with Rules 49S and 56C (2) deals with account of votes records. This Form was inserted in the Rules on August 14, 2013. Rule 49S reads: "Account of votes recorded.—(1) The presiding officer shall at the close of the poll prepare an account of votes recorded in Form 17C and enclose it in a separate cover with the words ‘Account of Votes Recorded’ superscribed thereon. (2) The presiding officer shall furnish to every polling agent present at the close of the poll a true copy of the entries made in Form 17C after obtaining a receipt from the said polling agent therefor and shall attest it as a true copy."

Rule 56C deals with counting of votes. Rule 56C (2) reads: As the votes polled by each candidate are displayed on the control unit, the returning officer shall have,—(a) the number of such votes recorded separately in respect of each candidate in Part II on Form 17C:Provided that the test vote recorded, if any, for a candidate, as per item 5 in Part I of Form 17C, shall be subtracted from the number of votes recorded for such candidate as displayed on the control unit; (b) Part II of Form 17C completed in other respects and signed by the counting supervisor and also by the candidates or their election agents or their counting agents present; and (c) corresponding entries made in a result sheet in Form 20 and the particulars so entered in the result sheet announced."

The High Court's order reads: "Taking into the consideration the provisions of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the respondents are directed to supply the copy of the requisite documents, other than the documents qua which a restriction has been imposed under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, within a period of 06 weeks of submission of such an application and deposit of the requisite charges by the petitioner." The case was registered on December 5, 2024. The judgement was authored by Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj.





Tuesday, June 4, 2024

Writ against rejection of nomination form of candidate from Jehanabad Lok Sabha constituency is "not maintainable": Patna High Court

Relying  on the Supreme Court's pronouncement of law in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami vs Returning officer, Namakkal Constituency, Patna High Court's Single Judge Bench dismissed this writ petition of Abhishek Dangi, the petitioner for the Lok Sabha Eelction-2024 from 36 (Jehanabad Constituency) "as being not maintainable". Dangi was an independent candidate. 

The High Court heard the writ application filed on May 17, 2024 which sought direction upon the concerned Respondent to accept nomination of the petitioner. The petitioner's nomination form was rejected on hyper technical ground on May 15, 2024 by the District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, Jehanabad. The Polling date for the said Constituency was on June 1, 2024. The petitioner made detailed representation to the concerned Respondents namely, the Election Commission of India, the District Returning Officer (Lok Sabha Election 2024)-cum District Magistrate, Jehanabad and the  State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna on May 16, 2024 but the same was not considered. It was heard on an application seeking urgent listing of the case made by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar. 

The counsel for the Election Commission of India submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court in view of Article 329 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the similar matter, Supreme Court has held that the word ‘election’ in Article 329 (b) connotes the entire electoral process commencing with the issue of the notification calling the election and culminating in the declaration of result, and that the electoral process once started could not be interfered with at any intermediary stage by Courts. Thus, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has been excluded in regard to matters provided for an Article 329 which covers all ‘electoral matters’.

The High Court noted that there is no provision for appeal in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against order of returning officer accepting or rejecting nomination paper. Nomination and scrutiny, being part of election process. 

It recalled Supreme Court's decision in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami vs Returning officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. [1952] S.C.R. The High Court observed that the bar created by Art 329 (b) of the Constitution is applicable to the orders of returning officer accepting or rejecting nomination papers and those orders also will have to be challenged in an election petition and not otherwise at a pre-poll stage. Article 329(b) of the Constitution lays down that "no election to either House of Parliament or to the either House of the Legislatures of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature". Similar bar is also created by Section 80 of the Act of 1951 which reads that “no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part”. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh's order concluded that "a suit, an appeal or a writ petition challenging the acceptance or rejection of nomination paper in an election to Central or State legislature is not competent." The order was passed on May 21, 2024. 

Notably, on May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea challenging rejection of the nomination from Jehanabad constituency. A vacation bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar asked the petitioner to approach a division bench of the Patna High Court with an appeal against the order of the single judge who rejected his petition challenging the rejection of his nomination papers. The court suggested that he can also file an election petition against the High Court order. The lawyer sought permission to withdraw the petition for exhausting the remedy available before the constitutional court. The permission was granted. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn. The website of the High Court indicates that the petitioner has not approached the division bench of the Patna High Court with an appeal against the order of the single judge who rejected his petition challenging the rejection of his nomination form, as yet. It also indicates that no election petition has been filed against the High Court's order so far.


"Counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present petition for exhausting the remedy available before the constitutional court," the bench noted while permitting the counsel to withdraw the plea. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/elections/india/lok-sabha-elections-2024-sc-refuses-to-entertain-independent-candidates-plea-against-rejection-of-nomination-3046420

Monday, March 11, 2024

Supreme Court's 9-Judge Constitution Bench to decide ambit of legislative power under Entry 33, Concurrent List and Entry 52 of Union List, VII Schedule

Supreme Court's 9-Judge Constitution Bench comprising Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih is all set to hear State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/s. Lalta Prasad Vaish along with connected matters on March 19, 2024. The Advocates and Parties-in-person have been asked to be ready to present their cases before the Court. 

The 3-judge bench of Justices H.K. Sema, Altamas Kabir and Lokeshwar Panta had referred it to a 9-judge bench by the judgement dated October 25, 2007. The judgement was authored by Justice Kabir. The judgement formulated the following six questions for the 9-judge bench to consider: 

1. Does Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, have any impact on the field
covered by Section 18-G of the said Act or Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution? 

Q.2 Does Section 18G of the aforesaid Act fall under Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution, or is it covered by Entry 33 of List III thereof?

Q.3 In the absence of any notified order by the Central Government under Section 18-G of the above Act, is the power of the State to legislate in respect of matters enumerated in Entry 33 of List III ousted?

Q.4 Does the mere enactment of Section 18-G of the above Act, give rise to a presumption that it was the intention of the Central Government to cover the entire field in respect of Entry 33 of List III so as to oust the States’ competence to legislate in respect of matters relating thereto? 

Q.5 Does the mere presence of Section 18-G of the above Act, oust the State’s power to legislate in regard to matters falling under Entry 33(a) of List III ?; 

Q.6 Does the interpretation given in Synthetics and Chemicals Case (1990) 1 SCC P 109, in respect of Section 18-G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, correctly state the law regarding the States’ power to regulate industrial alcohol as a product of the Scheduled industry under Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution in view of clause (a) thereof?

Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 states: "It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the industries specified in the First Schedule." The First Schedule of the Act read with Sections 2 provides a list of industry engaged in the manufacture or production of any of the articles.  

Notably, Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 has been placed under Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India which contains a list of central and state laws which cannot be challenged in courts. It was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The first Amendment had added 13 laws to Ninth Schedule. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was enacted by the provisional Parliament amidst vociferous protest.  

Section 18-G of the Act deals with power of the Central Government to control supply, distribution, price, etc., of certain articles.  

Entry 52 of Union List I covers "Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest." 

Entry 33 of Concurrent List III covers "33. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of,—(a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products;(b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils; (c) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates; (d) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and (e) raw jute." Notably, this entry was substituted by the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954 amidst from opposition party leaders in the Parliament and State Assemblies. Karpoori Thakur (Bharat Ratna ) had opposed it on the ground that it erodes State's autonomy in breach of the intent of the framers of the Constitution. 

The case emerged out of Special Leave Petition No. 16505 of 2004 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers in the Excise Department on June 23, 2004 against the Judgment and Order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on February 12, 2004 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1027 of 1999, which was filed by R.P. Sharma in his capacity as the sole proprietor of M/s Bimal Paints and Chemical Industries situated at Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh. The writ petitioner was the holder of a licence in Form FL No. 41 granted under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 and the rules under it. The petitioner was aggrieved by the levy of licence fee on the sale of specially denatured spirit to licencees holding licence in Form FL 41 @ 15% ad valorem on the sale made by a distillery/wholesale vendor to FL 41 licencees purportedly under the provisions of the U.P. Licences for the Possession of Denatured Spirit and Specially Denatured Spirit Rules, 1976 as amended from time to time. The petitioner contended that the licence fee levied on a FL 41 licence is neither regulatory nor a compensatory fee because no services are rendered to the licensee which could justify it as a regulatory fee. 

The High Court has held the impugned licence fee to be wholly illegal upon observing that in the case before it, the respondents had not claimed that the fee in question was being charged for ensuring that the rectified spirit is not diverted and used for human consumption, but that the fee was being charged for sale/purchase of denatured spirit. The High Court was of the view that having regard to the findings of this Court in State of U.P. v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd (2004) imposition of fee on such ground was not acceptable since legislation with regard to denatured spirit was outside the purview of the State Legislative powers. It was held that denatured spirit is outside the seisin of the State Legislature which has jurisdiction over only potable alcohol. Citing paragraph 42 of the judgment in Vam Organic’s case, the High Court observed "Assuming that de-natured sprit may by whatever process be renatured, (a proposition which is seriously disputed by the respondents) and then converted into potable liquor this would not give the State the power to regulate it." The High Court held that the licence fee was illegal. It directed the respondents to refund the fee collected from the writ petitioners along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of realization/deposit till the date of refund within two months of production of the certified copy of the judgment. 

Supreme Court granted interim stay on the High Court's judgement on August 22, 2004. Subsequent to the stay, several other similar writ petitions were filed by several licence holders holding licences in Form FL Nos.16, 17, 39 and 41 which were all disposed of by applying the decision in R.P. Sharma’s case.  Seven of the writ petitioners filed special leave petitions in this Court and on leave being granted in four of the matters, they were converted into Civil Appeals. The remaining three matters were at the special leave petition stage. On November 29, 2004, SLP(C) No. 26110 of 2004 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma) together with SLP (C) No. 26111 of 2004 (State of U.P. vs. Priyambada Jaiswal) were directed to be tagged with R.K. Sharma’s case, namely, SLP(C) No. 16505 of 2004. Similarly, SLP(C) 19275 of 2004 (State of U.P. vs. Somaiya Organic (India) Ltd.) was tagged with SLP(C) No. 16505 of 2004 on 16th August, 2005. The four other matters, which were converted into appeals, were also tagged with SLP(C) 16505 of 2004 by order dated April 26, 2007. On account of these orders all the eight matters have came up for final hearing and disposal before the 3-judge bench of Supreme Court.

The Court observed that the common challenge in all the matters is that the State had no power to regulate the manufacture and sale of denatured spirit in view of Section 2 and Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1961. It is also the common case in all these matters that by Section 2 of the aforesaid Act of 1961 read with Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the Parliament declared alcohol industry to be an industry, control of which by the Union is expedient in the public interest and consequently the power to legislate in respect thereof is now vested exclusively in Parliament.

All these matters were decided by the High Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Vam Organic Chemical Ltd (2004) and on the decision of the 7-Judge Bench of the Court in the case of Synthetics and Chemical Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (1990). Notably, the former had relied on the latter judgement.  

The Court recorded the submission that while deciding the case of Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1956)  the central issue was with regard to the question as to whether legislation by the Centre under Entry 52 of List I would also affect the concurrent powers vested in the State by way of Entry 33 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Although, the said judgment was rendered in the context of the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938 to provide for the licensing of sugar factories and for regulating the supply of sugarcane intended to be used in such factories and the price at which it could be purchased and for other incidental matters, the provisions of both Section 2 as well as Section 18 G of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 fell for consideration in the said case. The Supreme Court while dealing with the said provisions held that the provisions of Section 18G of the 1951 Act did not cover sugarcane, nor did it indicate the intention of the Parliament to cover the entire field of such legislation. It was also held that the expression "any article or class of articles related to any scheduled industry" used in Section 18G, 15 and 16 of the Act did not refer to raw material but only to finished products of the scheduled industries the supply and distribution of which Section 18-G was intended to regulate, its whole object being the equitable distribution and availability of manufactured articles at fair prices and not to invest the Central Government with the power to legislate in regard to sugarcane. It was also held that even assuming the sugarcane was an article which fell within the purview of Section 18-G of the Act, no order having been issued by the Central Government thereunder, no question of repugnancy could arise, as repugnancy must exist as a fact and not as mere possibility and the existence of such an order would be an essential pre-requisite for it.

It was pointed out that the decision in the Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1956) case was not been brought to the notice of the 7 Judge Bench which decided the Synthetics and Chemicals case and it, did not, therefore, have the benefit of the reasoning which prompted this Court earlier to hold that one aspect of Entry 33 of List III was not covered by the U.P. Sugar Industries Control Act, 1938. The 7 Judge Bench did not also have the benefit of the reasoning in Ch. Tikaramji’s case which had held that in the absence of any notified order under Section 18-G of the 1951 Act no question of repugnancy could arise, which Mr. Dwivedi urged, recognised the State’s power to legislate with regard to matters under Entry 33 of List III notwithstanding the provisions and existence of Section 18-G in the 1951 Act.

The decision in SIEL Limited v. Union of India (1998) was also cited wherein relying on the policy decision in Ch. Tikaramji’s case, the Court explained and distinguished the decision of the 7 Judge Bench in Synthetics and Chemicals case. Following decision of the Supreme Court in A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras (1957), the judges held that the contention of the appellants that by the enactment of Section 18-G the power of the State to legislate under said Entry 33 of List III was taken away, was untenable. The Court observed that apart from the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution the enactment of Section 18-G did not by itself create any repugnancy between the Parliamentary legislation and the State legislation, namely, the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964.

The sum and substance of the submission of S.K. Dwivedi, the senior counsel for the appellants,was that the mere existence of Section 18-G in the Statute book could not oust the competence of the State legislature to enact legislation in respect of matters falling under Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The 3-judge bench noted that his submissions have a good deal of force, since by virtue of the interpretation of Section 18-G in the Synthetics and Chemicals case the power of the State to legislate with matters relating to Entry 33 of List III have been ousted, except to the extent as explained in the Synthetics and Chemicals case in paragraphs 63-64 of the judgment, where the State’s power to regulate, as far as regulating the use of alcohol, which would include the power to make provisions to prevent and/or check industrial alcohol being used as intoxicant liquor, had been accepted. It was also stated in paragraph 64 of the judgment that the Bench recognised the power of the State to regulate not as an emanation of police power but as an expression of the sovereign power of the State. It endorsed the view that the 7 Judge Bench did not have the benefit of the views expressed by the Supreme Court earlier in Ch. Tikaramji case where the State’s power to legislate under the Concurrent List stood ousted by legislation by the Central Government under Entry 52 of List I and also in view of Section 18-G
of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. 

The 3-judge bench of Supreme Court observed, "In our view, if the decision in the Synthetics and Chemicals case (supra) with regard to the interpretation of Section 18-G of the 1951 Act is allowed to stand, it would render the provisions of Entry 33 (a) of List III nugatory or otiose." It concluded, "this aspect of the matter requires reconsideration by a larger Bench of this Court, particularly, when the views expressed by 7 Judge Bench on the aforesaid question have been distinguished in several subsequent decisions of this Court, including the two decisions rendered by Constitution Benches of five Judges."