KP

Comparison is the thief of joy.

[Live Law @LiveLawIndia]

"The heart of the Constitution and the heart of democracy, which is the right to vote, is at great peril," Justice Nariman said.
Read more: https://t.co/uXuCn9pRDH
#JusticeNariman #ElectionCommission #Constitution #democracy #righttovote

[KP @KaranP080]

@F1Niharika I don’t think Lewis moves to second, he is still behind George

[KP @KaranP080]

@IndianGems_ Why does BJP keep running with this failed narrative?

[KP @KaranP080]

@IndianGems_ Do you really need 20 years to fix a system? There is no will to improve from this government, just loot the taxpayer money and put it back into machinery to win elections with deceit and corruption

[KP @KaranP080]

@LiveLawIndia This is great

[KP @KaranP080]

It’s like they are challenging the intelligence of Indians by saying 2047 again and again

[🚨Indian Gems @IndianGems_]

"I urge students to play a leading role in building a clean, green and healthy India by 2047."

— Pralhad Joshi, Education minister

[🚨Indian Gems @IndianGems_]

A man shared a clip from a local train near Mumbai showing its pathetic condition.

[KP @KaranP080]

@Apurvasrani But that would mean caring for the public. Government doesn’t work like that, they will just say can’t you even spend few thousands for travel if u are booking flights

[KP @KaranP080]

@Javedakhtarjadu Thank you for speaking up for democracy Javed sahaab 🫡

[Ashwin Mahesh @ashwinmahesh]

Bombay High Court ask Election Commission - "show us in the Act what empowers you to delete a voter's name from the roll without giving them a hearing". The court also reminds the EC that its main job is to ENABLE people to vote, the very opposite of what the commission is now doing.

[Mohammed Zubair @zoo_bear]

Expose by @varthabharati: In a call recording, a Vartha Bharathi reporter speaks with a couple who filed Form 7 objections seeking bulk Muslim voter deletions. The husband and wife, both BJP workers from Madikeri Assembly constituency says, they received printed Form 7s from the party office and that 50 objections were filed from their booth alone.

Kannada to English Translation:

Reporter : Hello, this is Manoj from Varta Bharti head office.

BJP worker 1 : Yes.

Journalist: How many form 7s have you applied madam.

BJP worker 1: What is it about Sir?

Journalist: You had submitted Form 7 to delete other person's vote. Against how many people have you applied in your booth.

BJP worker 1: I have submitted against 10 people

Journalist: Was it because they were not staying in the village?

BJP worker 1: Yes. Hmm.. No.

BJP worker 2: We had a doubt, That's why we applied. We thought, They might have two voter ids.

Journalist: But, in the form, you mentioned 'absent', and after mentioning that in the form 7, Now you say we had doubt that they might have been registered elsewhere?

BJP worker 2: We actually had doubt if they had two votes, That's why we went to BLO and applied form 7 for our clarification.

Journalist: Ok. But the form 7 you submitted, The names were not handwritten, But it was printed right. Where did you get that printed form 7?

BJP worker 2: This was given to us by our party. From Somwarpete office.

Journalist: So in total for how many people have you both applied for deletion?

BJP worker 2: She applied against 10 people and I applied against 10 people.

Journalist: Okay. In total, how many people have applied in that particular booth?

BJP worker 2: In this booth, Against 50 people.

BJP worker 2: Is there any problem Sir?

Journalist: No no...

BJP worker 2: Is there is any problem? if so, we will take it back Sir.

Journalist: No no. Thank you.

[The Hindu @the_hindu]

BLOs allege they were pressured to sign, and say that two men, claiming to be from the Belagavi City Corporation, brought a bulk of Form-7 applications seeking deletion of only Muslim names.

✍️ @rishitaakhanna

https://t.co/JEA6JjSD9c

[Sincere Dibya @TheSincereDude]

Layer 1: Tata Group companies, including TCS, pumped ₹915 crore into PET; 83% of which went to BJP.

Layer 2: TCS quietly received the ERONET 2.0 contract; India's voter roll backbone; with no tender, no published contract, no audit trail.

Layer 3: Under that TCS-run system, Form 6 was illegally modified, 13 crore names were struck off SIR rolls, and statutory EROs in Goa were locked out of their own database by Delhi-controlled servers.

This is not three coincidences. This is one architecture.

[Rishita @rishitaakhanna]

SIR: Form-7 applications already printed with Muslim voters’ details have now been reported in Belagavi, with BLOs saying they were pressured to sign forms seeking deletion of names of people they knew well, including the Booth Level Agent himself

Read: https://t.co/RUvxQ9br6e

[KP @KaranP080]

@PMCPune BAIF Road Wagholi has been dig up and big dumper vehicles are regularly used on this road which has 2 schools. It’s very dangerous for kids and parents travelling every morning. They should halt during the day and only work at nights

[Forum For IT Employees - FITE @FITEMaharashtra]

*मग, आचारसंहिता लागू असतांना आणि पितृपक्षात नागरिकांकडून कर (TAX) का घेता?* -
*IT अभियंते संतापले*

https://t.co/juUqMfzURr

[R. K. Singh @RajKSinghIndia]

An open letter to all my countrymen.

Do you want India to remain a democracy? Then you must understand what Gyanesh Kumar, the CEC, and his bosses are doing in the so-called SIR.
They are violating the law.
- As per Section 21 of the law, a special revision is to be undertaken only in special cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing in each case; and that also only in any constituency or part of a constituency. An order for intensive revision for the whole country was illegal. An exception allowed for special cases cannot become the rule. The Supreme Court order upholding the general SIR was wrong.
Another question is - who took the decision for SIR in the whole country? Was it the full commission; or only Gyanesh Kumar.
- Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, provides that where the revision of an electoral roll is taken up, the electoral roll in force at the time of the issue of the notification of revision shall continue in effect till the completion of the revision. The revised electoral rolls become complete only after all the appeals filed against inclusion or deletion are disposed off. Where the appeals were still pending, the original Electoral roll which was valid on the date of notification was to be used. Contrary to this the new roll with deletions was used during the elections even though appeals against deletions were still pending. This was illegal.

- Section 22 of the RP Act provides that the Electoral Registration Officer, and not anyone else, can remove a voter's name from the roll and that also only on the grounds listed in Section 22(a), (b), and (c); and only after a specific enquiry, after giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and only after appeals against his order are disposed off. Gyanesh Kumar removed the names of all the voters who had been listed by the ERO's after 2003, without any basis, without any enquiry, and without any show cause to the registered voters. This was blatantly illegal.
The persons whose names were removed summarily had to apply as fresh voters in Form 6 and give evidence that they were eligible to be registered. This is a clear violation of the Supreme Court judgement in Lal Babu Hussain and Others v. Electoral Registration Officer and Others, [(1995) 3 SCC 100], which held that the enquiry authority or the objector and not the voter - must bring forth material evidence to back any claim that an enrolled voter be disqualified. And in such cases the voter must be asked to show cause why his name should not be removed on the basis of the grounds adduced by the enquiry officer. All this did not happen.

The established jurisprudence is that the onus to prove that there are sufficient grounds for subjecting any person to a disability or punishment is on the
person or institution which is seeking to inflict the punishment. Here, Gyanesh Kumar has inverted the burden of proof. This is also against the law.

Up to now, the efforts of the Government and the Election Commission have always been to enroll all eligible voters. It was a mission to deepen democracy and empower all citizens. This is the first time in history of the country that the mission is to disenfranchise people.

Gyanesh Kumar added a new appendix to Form 6. He was not authorised to do so, as Form 6 is mandated by statutory rules. And he added this himself – against the views of the two election commissioners. The decisions of the commission are to be taken either unanimously – or by a majority. The majority was against the addition of the new appendix to the form. So the addition of the new appendix was against the decisions of the Commission itself. So why was it added? On whose orders? This was illegal. This appendix asks the applicant to state the serial number in the 2003 voter list on which their parents' names were listed. Where can an ordinary person – a young man of 18; access the 2003 roll in 2026? This stopped the registration of all young voters. BJP knows that young voters will not vote for it.

Objections to inclusion of voters names in form 7 were filed in bulk. Who filed them? How were the forms accepted and acted upon when the persons who signed it did not appear?

Names of 16 lac voters found valid by the ERO were not registered in Bengal because, it seems, the EC filed appeals against them. Why? On which grounds? Who authorised the Commission to file appeals? Two Election Commissioners say they did not do so. So the Commission did not authorise anyone to file appeals. Who did it? Gyanesh Kumar? These people were prevented from voting in the election.

So the Election Commission and some people from a political party were acting in cahoots to get bogus Form 7 objections filed in bulk and delete names?

How were elections allowed to be held when the appeals of lakhs of voters were pending? The ECI and the Supreme Court have to answer. The appeals which have been decided show that 90% of the voters who were left out were valid.

A ridiculous thing was brought up called "logical discrepancy". Gyanesh Kumar does not have any idea of how the poor live in India. Their children are not born in hospitals. They do not have birth certificates. They do not have calendars in their homes. When the BLO approached them to enroll them in the voter list they gave their estimated year of birth. Similarly, when their fathers' names were enrolled in the electoral roll, they gave their estimated year of birth. The dumb people in the Election Commission, under Gyanesh Kumar, said that any difference of less than 15 years between father and children would be a logical discrepancy justifying excluding their names. The “Logical Discrepancy” names were excluded without enquiry, contrary to sec 21 of the act.

The largest number of exclusions have been the poor and the underprivileged, those without a voice. They were and are mostly away from their homes, earning their daily bread. Lakhs are working in faraway places/states. They could not and cannot afford to go back to their homes for a month to get their names registered. They will go hungry if they do not earn. They cannot fill the complicated forms. They do not have birth certificates and the papers. Why should they sacrifice their daily wages for a vote?

The illegal immigrants are not affected. The first thing they do on entering India is to get their documentation made—Aadhaar card, ration card, etc. The earlier immigrants are their support systems. It is the poor Indian citizens who have been disenfranchised. The dumb people in the Election Commission and their bosses did not understand this. Or they wanted it this way.

Gyanesh Kumar has made a digital electoral roll and empowered it to refuse addition of names because of “Logical discrepancy”. In the name of "Logical discrepancy", the names of millions of voters have not been included. This is against the law. The only authority designated by law to add or delete names and publish the electoral rolls is the Electoral Registration Officer. Contrary to this, the electoral roll was centralised and the revision happened centrally. This was illegal.

Two Election Commissioners pointed out that the only people authorized to add or delete names – the ERO, the DEO and the CEO were not being allowed to access the voter list. In Goa, 97 electors were found by the ERO to be valid and fit for inclusion in the roll. They have not been able to add their names to the roll as yet.

The centralisation of the voter list amendment is dangerous. It can be used to cut voters from booths which vote against NDA. Is this what happened?

Deleting voters names before verification is a heinous offence, and Gyanesh Kumar is guilty thereof.

13 crores names have been deleted by SIR so far. This is 13% of the voters, and SIR is not over. The difference between NDA and INDIA in the 2024 elections was only 3%. So the deletion have had and will have a material impact on the elections.

The press note issued after the Commission meeting on 26th September confirms the illegalities mentioned above.

Did Gyanesh Kumar commit all these illegalities himself or was he directed to do so by his bosses?

The Opposition says that they will impeach Gyanesh Kumar. That is an exercise in futility. They just do not have the numbers. If they really want a remedy, they should file criminal cases against Gyanesh Kumar.

The next step to be taken is that all opposition parties should unite and say that they will not participate in any election till the CEC and Election Commissioners' resign and the selection of their successors is as per the previous selection system, with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a sitting Supreme Court judge. Elections held in states while the appeals of lakhs of voters were pending must be set aside and fresh elections held. And the poll must be held by ballot not by EVMs because no electronic system has yet been invented which cannot be hacked. That is why none of the economically and digitally advanced countries use EVMs.

If we want to preserve our democracy the whole country will need to be made aware and united.

The reputation of the Supreme Court has been besmirched by the judgement on SIR. It is at par in infamy with the judgement upholding the emergency. Hon’ble Judges may please note.

The procrastination on the challenge to the law on selection of Election Commissioners is also sending a bad message about the Supreme Court – as it is an open and shut case that the Election Commissioners should not be selected by the party in power; but by a neutral selection committee to ensure their neutrality.
Let us unite to save our democracy.
RK Singh
(IAS Retd. Ex Union Home Secretary)

@abhijeet_dipke @Cockroachisback @RahulGandhi @kharge @ArvindKejriwal @MamataOfficial @yadavakhilesh @mkstalin @yadavtejashwi @Pawankhera

[Ayush Tiwari @sighyush]

When police lathi-charged Muslim voters in Sambhal during the 2024 elections, the ECI dismissed the footage as "false".

The clean chit came from Sambhal's returning officer Manish Bansal – son-in-law of then Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. @scroll_in
https://t.co/9hc39398KA

[KP @KaranP080]

So at what scale of election will SC intervene to ensure voters can exercise their rights?

[Live Law @LiveLawIndia]

'These Are Just Bye-Elections': CJI Declines Urgent Hearing Of SIR Cases Ahead Of West Bengal By-Polls |@DebbyJain

#SupremeCourt #WestBengal #SIR

https://t.co/dOKmIRiOeb

[KP @KaranP080]

@barandbench Why is SC so unbothered about voting rights of Indian citizens?