SC questions EC on voter roll deletions, citizenship
- The Supreme Court has questioned the Election Commission (EC) regarding whether an Electoral Registration Officer’s (ERO) decision to remove a person from voter rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) could trigger a separate investigation by the Central government into that individual’s right to remain in India.
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi specifically inquired whether ERO findings must be referred to the Centre for a formal decision under the Citizenship Act before a person’s rights are stripped,.
- These judicial queries followed submissions that the second phase of the SIR process has led to the deletion of approximately 6.5 crore names across nine states and three Union Territories,.
- Among these, Uttar Pradesh saw the highest number of removals, with 2.89 crore names struck from the draft rolls,.
- The Election Commission has defended the exercise, asserting that it has a “constitutional duty” to ensure that no foreigners occupy space in the nation’s electoral rolls,.
- Counsel for the EC dismissed claims that the SIR constitutes a “parallel NRC” as mere rhetoric, arguing that while the National Register of Citizens tallies all residents, the SIR only counts individuals aged 18 and above for the purpose of preparing electoral rolls,,.
- The EC further maintained that its authority to verify citizenship for roll preparation is derived from [[Article 324]] of the Constitution and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960,.
- During the proceedings, EC counsel Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the commission is not required to wait for a final determination on citizenship from the Central government before removing a name.
- He contended that once a “shadow is cast” on an individual’s citizenship, they must be excluded from the rolls to prevent non-citizens from participating in the electoral process,.
- Chief Justice Surya Kant queried the premise that non-citizens are entirely without entitlement, while the EC insisted that citizenship remains a cornerstone of the electoral framework.
- The EC has clarified that any voter excluded during the SIR retains a legal right to appeal the decision,.
Delivery platforms to stop 10-minute service after appeal by Labour Minister Mansukh Mandaviya
- Branding Adjustments: Blinkit led the transition by revising its principal tagline from “10,000+ products delivered in 10 minutes” to “30,000+ products delivered at your doorstep”.
- Other competitors are expected to follow suit and remove hyper-fast delivery promises from their marketing.
- The Ministry’s Nudge: Minister Mandaviya urged these platforms to stop the 10-minute branding to prioritize the health and welfare of gig workers.
- While there is no specific law prohibiting such advertisements, the government conveyed its concerns through direct dialogue with the platforms.
- Worker Safety Concerns: The move comes in the wake of nationwide protests by gig workers’ unions, who argued that the 10-minute model forced delivery partners into dangerous road behavior and extreme mental and physical stress.
- Industry Defense vs. Reality: During discussions, platforms argued that their delivery speed was enabled by high warehouse density rather than rider pressure.
- However, industry sources also revealed that approximately half of these deliveries already take longer than 10 minutes in practice.
Impact and Reactions
- Road Safety Improvements: Experts believe that doing away with these strict timelines will significantly reduce pressure on riders and dark-store workers, ultimately improving road safety.
- Stakeholder Approval: The decision has been welcomed by unions like the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers’ Union and the Gig & Platform Service Workers Union as a major step toward worker dignity.
- Additionally, political leaders have expressed gratitude for the “compassionate intervention” by the Central government.
- Focus on Labor Codes: Industry executives suggest that as companies move away from aggressive marketing claims, the focus should shift toward formalizing benefits and social security for gig workers under the new labor codes.
Trump tells Iran protesters to ‘take over institutions’
- U.S. President Donald Trump has encouraged anti-government protesters in Iran to “take over your institutions,” asserting that “help is on its way”.
- In a social media post, he urged “Iranian patriots” to save the names of “killers and abusers,” warning they would pay a “big price”.
Key details regarding this escalation include:
- Canceled Negotiations: Trump announced the cancellation of all meetings with Iranian officials until the “senseless killing” of protesters stops.
- Economic Pressure: He announced a 25% tariff on any country doing business with Iran, a move intended to provide “tremendous leverage” to stop trade with the Islamic Republic.
- Iranian Response: Iranian officials have described the situation as a “four-front war”—economic, psychological, military, and against “terrorists”—and warned that U.S. interference will destabilize the entire region.
- Casualties: While death tolls vary by report, activists estimate at least 734 people have been killed during the unrest.
This stance follows recent U.S. military actions in Venezuela, leading some analysts to suggest Trump may be following a similar “regime change” model in Iran.
The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict regarding the legality of Section 17A of the [[Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988]].
This specific provision mandates that prior government approval is required before authorities can initiate an investigation into a public servant for actions related to their official decision-making. Because the two-judge Bench could not agree, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of India to be placed before a larger, three-judge Bench.
The Differing Judicial Opinions
The two justices offered fundamentally different interpretations of the law:
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna (Unconstitutional): She concluded that Section 17A is “plainly unconstitutional”.
- Her primary concern was that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution by offering protection only to a higher category of civil servants, creating an illegal and unequal classification.
- She argued the provision is arbitrary because it prevents even a basic enquiry into potential corruption without prior approval, which she believes contradicts the rule of law and the fundamental purpose of anti-corruption legislation.
- Justice K.V. Viswanathan (Constitutional with Safeguards): He argued that the provision is necessary to ensure that honest public servants can make decisions without fear of frivolous or motivated complaints.
- He warned that striking down the section would lead to “policy paralysis” and suggested that the possibility of a provision being abused is not a sufficient reason to declare it unconstitutional.
- Instead of invalidating the law, he proposed that the power to grant sanction should be moved to an independent authority like the Lokpal or Lok Ayukta.
The Core Legal Tension
- Justice Viswanathan noted that a “fine balance” is required between protecting public servants from mala fide (bad faith) prosecution and the necessity of maintaining public probity by prosecuting those against whom genuine evidence of corruption exists.
- In contrast, Justice Nagarathna maintained that the requirement for prior approval to protect “honest” officers does not justify a system that essentially forecloses inquiries at the threshold.
The [[Lokpal]] is an independent anti-corruption authority designed to oversee the probity of public officials. In the context of the recent Supreme Court split verdict, its role and the potential impact on investigations are as follows:
Roles of the Lokpal
- Independent Arbiter for Sanctions: Justice K.V. Viswanathan proposed that the power to grant approval (sanction) for investigating a public servant should be moved from the government to an independent body like the Lokpal.
- High-Level Inquiries: The Lokpal already possesses the statutory authority to conduct inquiries into corruption allegations against high-ranking officials, including the Prime Minister.
- Administrative Oversight: Beyond specific cases, the Lokpal serves as an ombudsman for institutional integrity, as seen when it recently canceled its own controversial tender for luxury vehicles following public criticism.
Impact on Current Corruption Investigations
- Legal Uncertainty: Because the two-judge Bench differed, the validity of Section 17A remains in question until a larger three-judge Bench delivers a final ruling.
- This creates a period of uncertainty for authorities wanting to initiate new probes into official decision-making.
- Potential for “Policy Paralysis”: If the requirement for prior sanction is struck down entirely—as Justice Nagarathna suggested—current investigations could proceed immediately without a government filter.
- However, opponents of this view argue this would lead to “policy paralysis,” where honest officers fear taking any decisive action due to the threat of immediate, frivolous investigations.
- Balancing Protection and Accountability: If the “independent authority” model is adopted, investigations would be screened by the Lokpal rather than the government. This is intended to ensure that genuine evidence of corruption is pursued while protecting public servants from mala fide (bad faith) prosecution.
Does this clarify how the Lokpal’s role might change depending on the Supreme Court’s final decision? We could also explore the specific criteria the Lokpal might use to evaluate these sanctions if you’re interested. [Original]