Prabhat Kumar

Hindu

[Ritika Chopra @RitikaChopra__]

.@IndianExpress editorial today.

CEC Gyanesh Kumar must acknowledge the damage done to the Election Commission on his watch, and make amends.

Whether and how he does that — not just damage control — is key to the trust of we, the people, in the integrity of elections.
https://t.co/GfXZICJjOz

[Abhijeet Dipke @abhijeet_dipke]

All these years the BJP controlled the narrative through mainstream media and WhatsApp.

But Instagram is a different battlefield. Gen Z has used it to question, mock and challenge political propaganda in ways that are far harder to control. And now Gen Alpha is coming of age online.

Restrictions on minors may sound reasonable on paper in the name of online safety. But it is fair to ask whether there is another motive too: stopping Gen Alpha from doing what Gen Z did. Even 15 and 16-year-olds are openly mocking the Prime Minister and those in power.

If the Centre is genuinely concerned about young people online, it should focus on making the internet safer for them. Start by cracking down on accounts that harass and abuse girls online, not by silencing an entire generation.

[Akhilesh Yadav @yadavakhilesh]

भाजपा में कुछ ‘पहिये’ अपने को ‘स्टीयरिंग’ समझने लगे हैं।

बच्चे जब बाइक पर बैठेते हैं तो बिना बात के हार्न बजाते रहते हैं। सत्ता पक्ष के लोग परिपक्व बनें बिना बात के हार्न न बजाएं।

[Ritika Chopra @RitikaChopra__]

Another day, another @IndianExpress break on the EC.

Sept 23. Our investigation breaks. The EC responds the same day: its platforms are protected against "unauthorized tampering", and EROs "function as per statutory powers."

What we didn't know was this.

The very next day, Maharashtra's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) wrote to the EC in Delhi asking for FOUR changes to ECINet, so EROs could use the discretion the law already gives them.

The same concern Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had put on record.

Stay with me for @vallabhozarkarr's cracker of a story in today's edition
(1/11)🧵

[Abhijeet Dipke @abhijeet_dipke]

Chalo Mumbai!

#GyanuMustGo

[Kishlay Sharma @KishlaySharma]

RK Singh 's open revolt against election system ....
Here you go !!

[ravish kumar @ravish_journo]

सभी अपनी-अपनी जगह से बोलते रहें। जवाब किसी सवाल का नहीं आया है। एक साल से अनगिनत रिपोर्ट छपी हैं ज़्यादातर में यही लिखा होता है कि चुनाव आयोग को ई मेल भेजा मगर जवाब नहीं आया। यह कैसा अहंकार है। अंपायर ही जवाब नहीं दे रहा है। चुनाव आयोग सरकार तो है नहीं, उसे हर सवाल का जवाब देना चाहिए था।

[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

[SFI @SFI_CEC]

Gyanesh ji, we're coming. Start counting your days at the ECI office.

Enjoy your chair while it lasts, we're gonna make you resign.

Wait and watch bro 😎
Tihar is calling for your service!

Bro, you're the Chief Election Commissioner of INDIA, not BJP's CEC. Remember that.

[Arvind Gunasekar @arvindgunasekar]

Former Union Minister and Union Home Secretary RK Singh on SIR’ controversy 👇🏻

[Jiddu @_jiddu]

Cockroaches on 2nd October

[Prabhat Kumar @Prabhat91679007]

@imrowdy_rathore Swatantra bhardwaj ko aise hi kuch hona chahiya tha

[Prabhat Kumar @Prabhat91679007]

@imrowdy_rathore Swatantra bhardwaj

[ANIL @AnilYadavmedia1]

सोशल मीडिया समाज में सबसे ज्यादा अपमानित होने वाली ये मोहतरमा मुझे यदमुल्ला कह रही हैँ,

अगर मैं इनके बारे में प्रचलित कुछ लोक कथाओं का उल्लेख कर दूँ,
तो क्या ये पुलिस की धमकी देंगी या नहीं देंगी,

आप लोग इनसे पूछकर बता दीजिए,

फिर आगे कोई बात हो,

[Prabhat Kumar @Prabhat91679007]

@imrowdy_rathore You only provide platform to the goons like Swatantra bhardwaj

You are no different

[Anmol Panwar @AnmolPanwar_88]

गद्दार ज्ञानेश कुमार और उनके Boss दोनों को इस्तीफ़ा देना चाहिए । चलो जंतर मंतर ।

[Rashtriya Janata Dal @RJDforIndia]

चिराग पासवान "हनुमान" भी बनेंगे और "विभीषण" भी?
सत्ता की मलाई भी खाएंगे और जिम्मेदारी भी नहीं लेंगे?
बेचने के लिए विभाग भी चाहिए और विभाग में हो रहे भ्रष्टाचार की जिम्मेदारी भी नहीं लेंगे?
शर्म आ रही है तो मंत्री पद से इस्तीफा क्यों नहीं दे देते?

@alokmehtamp
#RJD #Bihar

[Ashutosh Ranka @AshutoshRanka]

Judiciary failed the country as far as SIR is concerned.

[KRK @kamaalrkhan]

Shahzaad Poonawala Ko Kapdon Ki Tarah Dho Diya. Ye chutiya ko kisne kaha tha show main jaane ko.

[ANIL @AnilYadavmedia1]

शहज़ाद पूनावाला को शो के बाक़ी सभी कलाकारों ने मिलकर पेल दिया,
एक ने तो BSDK वाली गाली भी दी,