September 24, 2026

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Wednesday remarked that it expected Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to take an “expeditious” decision on a plea seeking the disqualification of 20 rebel TMC MPs who have joined Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI).A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it was aware that it could not issue a direction to the Lok Sabha Speaker, “but we just want to remind him about an expeditious resolution”.Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, submitted that the rebel parliamentarians had not filed a response despite notices being issued and had sought further extension.Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Speaker, told SC that Birla had issued notices on the disqualification petitions. “He knows the seriousness of the matter,” Mehta said.The CJI remarked, “We will expect anything which is required to be decided expeditiously, the very nature… demands early adjudication.”Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesMehta responded, “Can a constitutional functionary remind another constitutional functionary of his constitutional duty?” He said the court should not prescribe a time limit for the Speaker.Justice Bagchi said, “…We may not give imperative directions, but keeping in mind the decision in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case… have resolution of this issue expeditiously.”In the 2020 case, SC had ruled that the speaker must decide defection cases within a reasonable time, preferably three months.Justice Bagchi asked Mehta to submit a timeline for the Speaker’s decision. Mehta, however, said he could not give SC a commitment. “This court’s monitoring may not be justified. I would urge not to fix the Speaker’s schedule,” he said.The top court recorded the submission of the rebel MPs that they would file a reply within four weeks and adjourned the matter.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosCJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament’This Is a Scandalous Story’: Opposition Attacks Gyanesh Kumar After Report Claims ECI DissentSIR, Form 6, Voter Rolls: EC Responds After Report Flags Objections By 2 Election CommissionersIndian Man Murdered in UAE: Body Found in Nine Pieces Inside Car In SharjahAsad Alam Siam to Be Bangladesh’s Next High Commissioner to India | What It Means for TiesUP Man Kills Wife & 2 Priests, Holds 3 Children Hostage, Later Shot Dead In Police Encounter123Hot PicksBPSC TRE 4 RecruitmentAndhra Pradesh school holidaySpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysWeather tomorrowHurricane PoloUPI transactionsOpenAI breachCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyConnor McDavid WifePowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna02 mins mins
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Wednesday remarked that it expected Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to take an “expeditious” decision on a plea seeking the disqualification of 20 rebel TMC MPs who have joined Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI).A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it was aware that it could not issue a direction to the Lok Sabha Speaker, “but we just want to remind him about an expeditious resolution”.Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, submitted that the rebel parliamentarians had not filed a response despite notices being issued and had sought further extension.Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Speaker, told SC that Birla had issued notices on the disqualification petitions. “He knows the seriousness of the matter,” Mehta said.The CJI remarked, “We will expect anything which is required to be decided expeditiously, the very nature… demands early adjudication.”Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesMehta responded, “Can a constitutional functionary remind another constitutional functionary of his constitutional duty?” He said the court should not prescribe a time limit for the Speaker.Justice Bagchi said, “…We may not give imperative directions, but keeping in mind the decision in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case… have resolution of this issue expeditiously.”In the 2020 case, SC had ruled that the speaker must decide defection cases within a reasonable time, preferably three months.Justice Bagchi asked Mehta to submit a timeline for the Speaker’s decision. Mehta, however, said he could not give SC a commitment. “This court’s monitoring may not be justified. I would urge not to fix the Speaker’s schedule,” he said.The top court recorded the submission of the rebel MPs that they would file a reply within four weeks and adjourned the matter.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosCJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament’This Is a Scandalous Story’: Opposition Attacks Gyanesh Kumar After Report Claims ECI DissentSIR, Form 6, Voter Rolls: EC Responds After Report Flags Objections By 2 Election CommissionersIndian Man Murdered in UAE: Body Found in Nine Pieces Inside Car In SharjahAsad Alam Siam to Be Bangladesh’s Next High Commissioner to India | What It Means for TiesUP Man Kills Wife & 2 Priests, Holds 3 Children Hostage, Later Shot Dead In Police Encounter123Hot PicksBPSC TRE 4 RecruitmentAndhra Pradesh school holidaySpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysWeather tomorrowHurricane PoloUPI transactionsOpenAI breachCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyConnor McDavid WifePowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court


Cannot direct Speaker but expect early ruling on TMC rebels: Supreme Court
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Wednesday remarked that it expected Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to take an “expeditious” decision on a plea seeking the disqualification of 20 rebel TMC MPs who have joined Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI).A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it was aware that it could not issue a direction to the Lok Sabha Speaker, “but we just want to remind him about an expeditious resolution”.Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, submitted that the rebel parliamentarians had not filed a response despite notices being issued and had sought further extension.Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Speaker, told SC that Birla had issued notices on the disqualification petitions. “He knows the seriousness of the matter,” Mehta said.The CJI remarked, “We will expect anything which is required to be decided expeditiously, the very nature… demands early adjudication.”

Share your thoughts in the comments

Related News

Election commissioners SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar NEW DELHI: Two of three election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, formally objected at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions taken in the full Commission’s name, according to an Indian Express report.On Wednesday, a Supreme Court-bench was split on the challenge to the law used to appoint them and asked the CJI to set up a five-judge bench.Why it mattersThe row lays bare three unsettled questions about election referee: who decides, who controls the voter database, and who picks the people at the top.Also read: What would Seshan do if faced with SIR?Here are 10 questions at the centre of the controversy.1. What exactly are the 2 EC reported to have objected to?The objections concern some of the most basic functions of election administration.According to the Express investigation, Sandhu and Joshi raised issues involving changes to Form 6, used by new voters seeking registration; deletion and restoration of names during SIR; appeals against decisions restoring voters; and access to and control over the electoral-roll database. Some notes also questioned communications allegedly issued in the Election Commission’s name without approval of the Commission.The EC’s response is that these were inputs during decision-making, that differing opinions are natural within a multi-member body, and that final decisions ultimately had the approval of all three commissioners.2. Can ECs disagree with one another?Absolutely. The law explicitly expects that they sometimes will.Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 says Commission business should, “as far as possible”, be conducted unanimously.“As far as possible” is the key phrase here.But it immediately provides for what happens when unanimity fails: if the CEC and Election Commissioners differ on an issue, the matter is decided according to the majority opinion.With three commissioners, the mathematics is straightforward: 2-1 decides the matter.The more intriguing issue in the current controversy is different: What happens if two commissioners say an action should not have been taken without the approval of the full Commission?3. Is the CEC the boss of the other two?The CEC unquestionably has an important institutional position, but the other two commissioners are not deputies who simply report to the chief.This question was fought over dramatically during T N Seshan’s tenure. The Supreme Court upheld the creation of a multi-member Election Commission and rejected the idea that the other commissioners were merely ornamental additions. Decisions could legally be taken by majority.The 2023 law reinforces the collegial structure. It says the Commission’s procedure and allocation of business may be regulated through a unanimous decision, while disagreements on substantive matters can be resolved by majority.So “Chief” does not mean the CEC has an automatic casting vote over two colleagues.In some respects, the arrangement resembles a three-judge bench more than a conventional government department headed by a secretary.4. If disagreements are routine, why has this become such a controversy?Because the reported disagreement is not simply over what the Commission should decide.Some of the notes reported by the Express raise an important question: Who authorised actions to be taken in the Commission’s name in the first place?In April, for example, Sandhu and Joshi separately flagged communications they said had been issued without the requisite approval of the Commission, according to the investigation.The factual question is therefore not merely whether commissioners had different views, but whether the disputed actions fell within areas requiring approval by the Commission and, if so, what approval existed.The EC says its final decisions were collectively and unanimously taken.5. Have not Election Commissioners dissented before?Yes.Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa disagreed with the majority in five Model Code of Conduct cases involving complaints against PM Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah. In some cases the Commission’s final position was reached 2-1.But the current episode is not identical.The reported notes by Sandhu and Joshi relate heavily to administration of the electoral-roll system and the process by which actions were authorised, rather than commissioners being formally outvoted 2-1.And this time, the two commissioners raising concerns constitute two of the three members.6. Should EC dissent be made public?That question remains unresolved politically and institutionally.The case for confidentiality is that collegial bodies need room for frank internal discussion. Officials may become more guarded if every disagreement is immediately made public, particularly while elections are underway.The opposite argument is that disclosure can demonstrate that controversial decisions were debated rather than simply rubber-stamped.This is a practice followed by RBI and SC.At the RBI’s Monetary Policy Committee, the law requires publication not only of the final resolution but also how every member voted and each member’s written explanation.The Supreme Court routinely publishes majority and dissenting judgments.The Election Commission has traditionally taken a different approach. The present row has therefore revived an old question: Should an institution whose law explicitly provides for majority decisions also have a formal mechanism for publishing minority reasoning?7. Why has electoral roll software become part of the controversy?Because election administration is increasingly also software administration.The law places responsibility for constituency electoral rolls with statutory officials such as Electoral Registration Officers. But modern voter rolls are maintained through interconnected digital platforms.The Express investigation reports that Sandhu and Joshi questioned growing centralisation of access to the electoral database and the extent to which local statutory officials retained control. One episode cited involved 97 Goa voters who had been found eligible by electoral officials but could not immediately be restored because the software lacked the required facility at that stage, according to the report.The EC says its digital systems operate with appropriate security safeguards and that statutory election officials retain their legal powers.8. Why SIR makes all this more consequential?The simple answer is: Scale.The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision has involved electoral rolls across multiple states and Union Territories. More than 13 crore names were excluded from draft rolls during the exercise across 30 states and UTs.Exclusion from a draft roll is not necessarily permanent: Voters may make claims, submit documents and pursue appeals.But depriving any electorate from casting vote for any election, howsoever local, should be treated as a serious issue in any democracy. The system needs to find a quick way to rectify it.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesDelhi SIR exercise has created a peculiar scenario. More than 33 lakh voters have received notices over matters including “logical discrepancies”, prompting the Supreme Court to question whether some notices appeared to have been issued “mechanically” and ask whether additional filters were needed.9. What’s the row about appointing election commissioners?On September 23, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed on selection mechanism of election commissioners. Justice Sharma favoured reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench; Justice Datta took a different view and emphasised that the EC must not only be independent but also appear independent. The matter is now to go before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate bench.10. So, what is the larger question raised by the EC row?It is less about whether disagreement inside the Election Commission is healthy or unhealthy. A three-member constitutional body is designed to accommodate disagreement.The bigger issue is whether there are clear rules for what happens around that disagreement.It’s also about the sanctity of electoral rolls. No eligible voter should be deprived of their right to cast vote in any kind of polls.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorRohitashwa RanjanRohitashwa Ranjan is a digital journalist with The Times of India, where he decodes Indian politics as a carefully staged production with scripts, subtext and everything behind. His stories track elections, party dynamics and the things that often are buried beneath the headlines. When not parsing vote shares or alliances, he is usually reading between the lines, where the real story tends to reside.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosLoP Role ‘Largely Ornamental’?: SC Judges Split Over EC Appointment Law, Matter Sent To CJIRam Temple Donation Case: SIT Files 74,000-Page Chargesheet Against 8 AccusedSahil Wakode Death Case: CCTV Footage Surfaces; IIT Bombay Sets Up 10-Member Probe Panel’Illegal’ Changes to IT System Row: Timeline of Sandhu & Joshi’s Objections Over Form 6, ECINet, SIRVivek Joshi & SS Sandhu: The 2 Election Commissioners Who ‘Raised Objections’ Over SIR, Form-6CJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026Bank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationTelangana school holidayMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Election commissioners SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar NEW DELHI: Two of three election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, formally objected at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions taken in the full Commission’s name, according to an Indian Express report.On Wednesday, a Supreme Court-bench was split on the challenge to the law used to appoint them and asked the CJI to set up a five-judge bench.Why it mattersThe row lays bare three unsettled questions about election referee: who decides, who controls the voter database, and who picks the people at the top.Also read: What would Seshan do if faced with SIR?Here are 10 questions at the centre of the controversy.1. What exactly are the 2 EC reported to have objected to?The objections concern some of the most basic functions of election administration.According to the Express investigation, Sandhu and Joshi raised issues involving changes to Form 6, used by new voters seeking registration; deletion and restoration of names during SIR; appeals against decisions restoring voters; and access to and control over the electoral-roll database. Some notes also questioned communications allegedly issued in the Election Commission’s name without approval of the Commission.The EC’s response is that these were inputs during decision-making, that differing opinions are natural within a multi-member body, and that final decisions ultimately had the approval of all three commissioners.2. Can ECs disagree with one another?Absolutely. The law explicitly expects that they sometimes will.Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 says Commission business should, “as far as possible”, be conducted unanimously.“As far as possible” is the key phrase here.But it immediately provides for what happens when unanimity fails: if the CEC and Election Commissioners differ on an issue, the matter is decided according to the majority opinion.With three commissioners, the mathematics is straightforward: 2-1 decides the matter.The more intriguing issue in the current controversy is different: What happens if two commissioners say an action should not have been taken without the approval of the full Commission?3. Is the CEC the boss of the other two?The CEC unquestionably has an important institutional position, but the other two commissioners are not deputies who simply report to the chief.This question was fought over dramatically during T N Seshan’s tenure. The Supreme Court upheld the creation of a multi-member Election Commission and rejected the idea that the other commissioners were merely ornamental additions. Decisions could legally be taken by majority.The 2023 law reinforces the collegial structure. It says the Commission’s procedure and allocation of business may be regulated through a unanimous decision, while disagreements on substantive matters can be resolved by majority.So “Chief” does not mean the CEC has an automatic casting vote over two colleagues.In some respects, the arrangement resembles a three-judge bench more than a conventional government department headed by a secretary.4. If disagreements are routine, why has this become such a controversy?Because the reported disagreement is not simply over what the Commission should decide.Some of the notes reported by the Express raise an important question: Who authorised actions to be taken in the Commission’s name in the first place?In April, for example, Sandhu and Joshi separately flagged communications they said had been issued without the requisite approval of the Commission, according to the investigation.The factual question is therefore not merely whether commissioners had different views, but whether the disputed actions fell within areas requiring approval by the Commission and, if so, what approval existed.The EC says its final decisions were collectively and unanimously taken.5. Have not Election Commissioners dissented before?Yes.Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa disagreed with the majority in five Model Code of Conduct cases involving complaints against PM Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah. In some cases the Commission’s final position was reached 2-1.But the current episode is not identical.The reported notes by Sandhu and Joshi relate heavily to administration of the electoral-roll system and the process by which actions were authorised, rather than commissioners being formally outvoted 2-1.And this time, the two commissioners raising concerns constitute two of the three members.6. Should EC dissent be made public?That question remains unresolved politically and institutionally.The case for confidentiality is that collegial bodies need room for frank internal discussion. Officials may become more guarded if every disagreement is immediately made public, particularly while elections are underway.The opposite argument is that disclosure can demonstrate that controversial decisions were debated rather than simply rubber-stamped.This is a practice followed by RBI and SC.At the RBI’s Monetary Policy Committee, the law requires publication not only of the final resolution but also how every member voted and each member’s written explanation.The Supreme Court routinely publishes majority and dissenting judgments.The Election Commission has traditionally taken a different approach. The present row has therefore revived an old question: Should an institution whose law explicitly provides for majority decisions also have a formal mechanism for publishing minority reasoning?7. Why has electoral roll software become part of the controversy?Because election administration is increasingly also software administration.The law places responsibility for constituency electoral rolls with statutory officials such as Electoral Registration Officers. But modern voter rolls are maintained through interconnected digital platforms.The Express investigation reports that Sandhu and Joshi questioned growing centralisation of access to the electoral database and the extent to which local statutory officials retained control. One episode cited involved 97 Goa voters who had been found eligible by electoral officials but could not immediately be restored because the software lacked the required facility at that stage, according to the report.The EC says its digital systems operate with appropriate security safeguards and that statutory election officials retain their legal powers.8. Why SIR makes all this more consequential?The simple answer is: Scale.The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision has involved electoral rolls across multiple states and Union Territories. More than 13 crore names were excluded from draft rolls during the exercise across 30 states and UTs.Exclusion from a draft roll is not necessarily permanent: Voters may make claims, submit documents and pursue appeals.But depriving any electorate from casting vote for any election, howsoever local, should be treated as a serious issue in any democracy. The system needs to find a quick way to rectify it.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesDelhi SIR exercise has created a peculiar scenario. More than 33 lakh voters have received notices over matters including “logical discrepancies”, prompting the Supreme Court to question whether some notices appeared to have been issued “mechanically” and ask whether additional filters were needed.9. What’s the row about appointing election commissioners?On September 23, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed on selection mechanism of election commissioners. Justice Sharma favoured reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench; Justice Datta took a different view and emphasised that the EC must not only be independent but also appear independent. The matter is now to go before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate bench.10. So, what is the larger question raised by the EC row?It is less about whether disagreement inside the Election Commission is healthy or unhealthy. A three-member constitutional body is designed to accommodate disagreement.The bigger issue is whether there are clear rules for what happens around that disagreement.It’s also about the sanctity of electoral rolls. No eligible voter should be deprived of their right to cast vote in any kind of polls.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorRohitashwa RanjanRohitashwa Ranjan is a digital journalist with The Times of India, where he decodes Indian politics as a carefully staged production with scripts, subtext and everything behind. His stories track elections, party dynamics and the things that often are buried beneath the headlines. When not parsing vote shares or alliances, he is usually reading between the lines, where the real story tends to reside.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosLoP Role ‘Largely Ornamental’?: SC Judges Split Over EC Appointment Law, Matter Sent To CJIRam Temple Donation Case: SIT Files 74,000-Page Chargesheet Against 8 AccusedSahil Wakode Death Case: CCTV Footage Surfaces; IIT Bombay Sets Up 10-Member Probe Panel’Illegal’ Changes to IT System Row: Timeline of Sandhu & Joshi’s Objections Over Form 6, ECINet, SIRVivek Joshi & SS Sandhu: The 2 Election Commissioners Who ‘Raised Objections’ Over SIR, Form-6CJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026Bank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationTelangana school holidayMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday suggested that the Centre appoint a former high court chief justice to head a panel tasked with framing a uniform national policy on post-retirement benefits for retired high court judges.The suggestion came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, informed the CJI-led bench that the government had decided to constitute the panel in compliance with an earlier direction.The law officers said a former secretary-level officer had been appointed to head the committee.“I think a former chief justice of a high court should preside over the committee,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who headed the bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, observed.The solicitor general agreed to the suggestions and said that the government would come back to bench on September 28.The bench was hearing a contempt petition filed by Justice VS Dave, president of the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, raising the issue of security and other facilities for retired judges.During the hearing, CJI Kant questioned whether the financial assistance provided by some states was “sufficient” to engage security personnel and drivers for former judges.“In Rs 45,000-50,000, is it possible to get a driver and a security officer?” he asked.Noting the lack of uniformity among states, the CJI suggested that the Centre constitute a committee to prescribe common norms and consider matching grants. “If you don’t do it, I will have to constitute one,” he told Solicitor General Mehta.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesMehta responded that the government had no difficulty constituting such a committee and would address the issue “in the spirit expressed” by the Supreme Court.In its order, the bench said the proceedings concern post-retirement benefits and facilities for retired chief justices and judges of high courts, including domestic help, drivers, telephone facilities, medical reimbursement and retention of government accommodation.“Basic facilities like domestic help, driver, telephone, medical reimbursement, stay in government houses, etc., vary from state to state,” the bench noted, adding that the lack of uniformity had prompted the Association of Retired Judges to approach the authorities and later the court.(With PTI inputs)Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorKaran ManralKaran Manral is a journalist at the Times of India. He covers politics, social issues, and international affairs, exploring stories that affect people’s everyday lives. He also writes explainers to make these stories easier for readers to follow.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosRam Temple Donation Case: SIT Files 74,000-Page Chargesheet Against 8 AccusedSahil Wakode Death Case: CCTV Footage Surfaces; IIT Bombay Sets Up 10-Member Probe Panel’Illegal’ Changes to IT System Row: Timeline of Sandhu & Joshi’s Objections Over Form 6, ECINet, SIRVivek Joshi & SS Sandhu: The 2 Election Commissioners Who ‘Raised Objections’ Over SIR, Form-6CJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament’This Is a Scandalous Story’: Opposition Attacks Gyanesh Kumar After Report Claims ECI Dissent123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026Bank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationTelangana school holidayMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday suggested that the Centre appoint a former high court chief justice to head a panel tasked with framing a uniform national policy on post-retirement benefits for retired high court judges.The suggestion came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, informed the CJI-led bench that the government had decided to constitute the panel in compliance with an earlier direction.The law officers said a former secretary-level officer had been appointed to head the committee.“I think a former chief justice of a high court should preside over the committee,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who headed the bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, observed.The solicitor general agreed to the suggestions and said that the government would come back to bench on September 28.The bench was hearing a contempt petition filed by Justice VS Dave, president of the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, raising the issue of security and other facilities for retired judges.During the hearing, CJI Kant questioned whether the financial assistance provided by some states was “sufficient” to engage security personnel and drivers for former judges.“In Rs 45,000-50,000, is it possible to get a driver and a security officer?” he asked.Noting the lack of uniformity among states, the CJI suggested that the Centre constitute a committee to prescribe common norms and consider matching grants. “If you don’t do it, I will have to constitute one,” he told Solicitor General Mehta.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesMehta responded that the government had no difficulty constituting such a committee and would address the issue “in the spirit expressed” by the Supreme Court.In its order, the bench said the proceedings concern post-retirement benefits and facilities for retired chief justices and judges of high courts, including domestic help, drivers, telephone facilities, medical reimbursement and retention of government accommodation.“Basic facilities like domestic help, driver, telephone, medical reimbursement, stay in government houses, etc., vary from state to state,” the bench noted, adding that the lack of uniformity had prompted the Association of Retired Judges to approach the authorities and later the court.(With PTI inputs)Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorKaran ManralKaran Manral is a journalist at the Times of India. He covers politics, social issues, and international affairs, exploring stories that affect people’s everyday lives. He also writes explainers to make these stories easier for readers to follow.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosRam Temple Donation Case: SIT Files 74,000-Page Chargesheet Against 8 AccusedSahil Wakode Death Case: CCTV Footage Surfaces; IIT Bombay Sets Up 10-Member Probe Panel’Illegal’ Changes to IT System Row: Timeline of Sandhu & Joshi’s Objections Over Form 6, ECINet, SIRVivek Joshi & SS Sandhu: The 2 Election Commissioners Who ‘Raised Objections’ Over SIR, Form-6CJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament’This Is a Scandalous Story’: Opposition Attacks Gyanesh Kumar After Report Claims ECI Dissent123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026Bank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationTelangana school holidayMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0
Mahua Moitra also alleged that the Election Commission made changes to Form 6. NEW DELHI: TMC MP Mahua Moitra on Thursday filed a police complaint against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at the Parliament Street Police Station, alleging that the Election Commission “manipulated the voter rolls.”Speaking to reporters, Mahua alleged that Kumar and the Election Commission’s IT system had bypassed local officials responsible for maintaining electoral rolls.Her allegations came a day after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the SIR.”I have come today to the Parliament Street Police Station to file a complaint against chor Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner of India, who has indulged in criminal conduct. What is the criminal conduct? The Election Commission is made up of three Election Commissioners to maintain checks and balances. Majority decisions prevail. It has now been proven by the Indian Express investigative report yesterday that two of the three Election Commissioners, namely Mr Joshi and Mr Sandhu, dissented from Mr Gyanesh Kumar’s actions on 14 occasions in the last 10 months, and sometimes as many as four times in a single day,” Mahua said.”Very important things, such as the centralisation of the IT software, were left entirely in the hands of DG IT Seema Khanna, who was using this software to bypass local, on-ground officials. What is the rule? The rule is that in every Assembly constituency and at every booth, the local official, the ERO and the BLO, are in charge of the voter roll. What we find is that Seema Khanna and Gyanesh Kumar, by using the ECI software illegally and criminally, manipulated the voter rolls, bypassed these local officials and did not give them access to the system,” she added.Moitra also alleged that the Election Commission made changes to Form 6, which is used to register new voters, without following the required procedure.”Secondly, in terms of Form 6, Form 6 allows a person to register as a new voter. How does a new voter get enrolled by filling out Form 6? What Gyanesh Kumar did illegally was insert a new question into Form 6, which is: Are you or any of your parents or grandparents linked to the SIR, yes or no? Mr Sandhu and Mr Joshi dissented and said that only by amending the rules could you do this; you cannot simply add a question,” she said.”Nobody could answer. The CEO of West Bengal could not answer, and the Chief Election Commissioner could not answer, and lakhs and crores of new voters were left out. Today, all over India, 13 crore voters have been deleted. What will happen to their children? What will happen to their children when they turn 18? They cannot get on the rolls either. So this is criminal conduct, and they cannot hide behind Section 16 of the CEC and EC Act of 2023,” she added.Later, after filing the FIR, Mahua shared a post on X along with a copy of the complaint. “Gyanesh Chor Kumar is rogue agent who acted without consent of other 2 ECs. Disenfranchising genuine voters is not official duties. He cannot enjoy immunity. He needs to be prosecuted. Simple,” she wrote on X.According to the media report, the two Election Commissioners had objected to changes in Form 6, with Joshi and Sandhu recording that the statutory form could not be altered without amending the relevant rules. Sandhu later described the changes as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for their immediate removal.The ECI has maintained that written notes, observations and internal checks are part of normal institutional deliberations. It has also said that its official orders and decisions have full legal sanction and that final decisions, including those related to the SIR, were taken unanimously.The reported objections relate to voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6 and centralised control of the electoral-roll database. According to the report, the two commissioners also raised concerns about access to the electoral-roll database by statutory officials.The reported differences have triggered demands from Opposition parties for action against Kumar. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged that the BJP, RSS and the Election Commission had committed an act of “treason” through what he called “vote chori”.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelines”Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our Constitution,” Rahul said. “The BJP, RSS and EC who organised it have committed an act of treason. Justice will be served.”Mamata Banerjee also alleged that the BJP and the EC had “looted” the West Bengal Assembly polls and demanded fresh elections in the state using the voter list that existed before the SIR.Meanwhile, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra defended the Election Commission, saying differences and exchanges between commissioners reflected “pure democracy” and were part of institutional deliberations.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorKanchan YadavKanchan Yadav is a writer at The Times of India, where she covers business, politics, international affairs and social issues. Her reporting also focuses on policy, governance and economic developments, with a close lens on how decisions in corridors of power affect everyday lives and community well-being.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosLoP Role ‘Largely Ornamental’?: SC Judges Split Over EC Appointment Law, Matter Sent To CJIRam Temple Donation Case: SIT Files 74,000-Page Chargesheet Against 8 AccusedSahil Wakode Death Case: CCTV Footage Surfaces; IIT Bombay Sets Up 10-Member Probe Panel’Illegal’ Changes to IT System Row: Timeline of Sandhu & Joshi’s Objections Over Form 6, ECINet, SIRVivek Joshi & SS Sandhu: The 2 Election Commissioners Who ‘Raised Objections’ Over SIR, Form-6CJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026Bank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationTelangana school holidayMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Mahua Moitra also alleged that the Election Commission made changes to Form 6. NEW DELHI: TMC MP Mahua Moitra on Thursday filed a police complaint against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at the Parliament Street Police Station, alleging that the Election Commission “manipulated the voter rolls.”Speaking to reporters, Mahua alleged that Kumar and the Election Commission’s IT system had bypassed local officials responsible for maintaining electoral rolls.Her allegations came a day after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the SIR.”I have come today to the Parliament Street Police Station to file a complaint against chor Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner of India, who has indulged in criminal conduct. What is the criminal conduct? The Election Commission is made up of three Election Commissioners to maintain checks and balances. Majority decisions prevail. It has now been proven by the Indian Express investigative report yesterday that two of the three Election Commissioners, namely Mr Joshi and Mr Sandhu, dissented from Mr Gyanesh Kumar’s actions on 14 occasions in the last 10 months, and sometimes as many as four times in a single day,” Mahua said.”Very important things, such as the centralisation of the IT software, were left entirely in the hands of DG IT Seema Khanna, who was using this software to bypass local, on-ground officials. What is the rule? The rule is that in every Assembly constituency and at every booth, the local official, the ERO and the BLO, are in charge of the voter roll. What we find is that Seema Khanna and Gyanesh Kumar, by using the ECI software illegally and criminally, manipulated the voter rolls, bypassed these local officials and did not give them access to the system,” she added.Moitra also alleged that the Election Commission made changes to Form 6, which is used to register new voters, without following the required procedure.”Secondly, in terms of Form 6, Form 6 allows a person to register as a new voter. How does a new voter get enrolled by filling out Form 6? What Gyanesh Kumar did illegally was insert a new question into Form 6, which is: Are you or any of your parents or grandparents linked to the SIR, yes or no? Mr Sandhu and Mr Joshi dissented and said that only by amending the rules could you do this; you cannot simply add a question,” she said.”Nobody could answer. The CEO of West Bengal could not answer, and the Chief Election Commissioner could not answer, and lakhs and crores of new voters were left out. Today, all over India, 13 crore voters have been deleted. What will happen to their children? What will happen to their children when they turn 18? They cannot get on the rolls either. So this is criminal conduct, and they cannot hide behind Section 16 of the CEC and EC Act of 2023,” she added.Later, after filing the FIR, Mahua shared a post on X along with a copy of the complaint. “Gyanesh Chor Kumar is rogue agent who acted without consent of other 2 ECs. Disenfranchising genuine voters is not official duties. He cannot enjoy immunity. He needs to be prosecuted. Simple,” she wrote on X.According to the media report, the two Election Commissioners had objected to changes in Form 6, with Joshi and Sandhu recording that the statutory form could not be altered without amending the relevant rules. Sandhu later described the changes as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for their immediate removal.The ECI has maintained that written notes, observations and internal checks are part of normal institutional deliberations. It has also said that its official orders and decisions have full legal sanction and that final decisions, including those related to the SIR, were taken unanimously.The reported objections relate to voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6 and centralised control of the electoral-roll database. According to the report, the two commissioners also raised concerns about access to the electoral-roll database by statutory officials.The reported differences have triggered demands from Opposition parties for action against Kumar. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged that the BJP, RSS and the Election Commission had committed an act of “treason” through what he called “vote chori”.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelines”Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our Constitution,” Rahul said. “The BJP, RSS and EC who organised it have committed an act of treason. Justice will be served.”Mamata Banerjee also alleged that the BJP and the EC had “looted” the West Bengal Assembly polls and demanded fresh elections in the state using the voter list that existed before the SIR.Meanwhile, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra defended the Election Commission, saying differences and exchanges between commissioners reflected “pure democracy” and were part of institutional deliberations.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorKanchan YadavKanchan Yadav is a writer at The Times of India, where she covers business, politics, international affairs and social issues. Her reporting also focuses on policy, governance and economic developments, with a close lens on how decisions in corridors of power affect everyday lives and community well-being.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosLoP Role ‘Largely Ornamental’?: SC Judges Split Over EC Appointment Law, Matter Sent To CJIRam Temple Donation Case: SIT Files 74,000-Page Chargesheet Against 8 AccusedSahil Wakode Death Case: CCTV Footage Surfaces; IIT Bombay Sets Up 10-Member Probe Panel’Illegal’ Changes to IT System Row: Timeline of Sandhu & Joshi’s Objections Over Form 6, ECINet, SIRVivek Joshi & SS Sandhu: The 2 Election Commissioners Who ‘Raised Objections’ Over SIR, Form-6CJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026Bank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationTelangana school holidayMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0
FSSAI regulation on analogue paneer, cheese NEW DELHI: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed restricting the use of the term “paneer” for analogue paneer and cheese products, seeking to prevent consumers from being misled about the nature and composition of the food they buy.The proposed amendment would affect food business operators, including hotels, restaurants and catering services, that use substitutes for traditional dairy-based paneer or cheese products.Under the proposal, products made using paneer or cheese analogues would have to be clearly identified to consumers. The FSSAI said businesses using such products must disclose the information prominently at consumer touchpoints, including menu cards and packaging labels, in line with the Food Safety and Standards (labelling and display) Regulations.The FSSAI notification said: “The amendment is proposed in the following regulation to restrict manufacturing and sale of analogue product as paneer so as to prevent misleading of consumer’s regarding the nature and composition of the product. Products already licensed or registered under ‘Analogue in Dairy Context’ category shall discontinue the use of the term “Paneer” in their nomenclature, labelling or marketing.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelines”The proposal also states that products already licensed or registered under the ‘Analogue in Dairy Context’ category would have to discontinue the use of the term “Paneer” in their nomenclature, labelling or marketing.The FSSAI said the proposed changes are aimed at ensuring consumers are not misled about products that are not traditional dairy-based paneer or cheese.The proposal comes amid increased food safety inspections and regulatory scrutiny over the labelling and composition of food products.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorAbhishek MishraAbhishek Mishra is a Digital Content Producer at The Times of India, working with the news desk. He writes with a keen eye on foreign policy, defence developments, and the shifting currents of geopolitics-and yes, Indian politics always finds a way onto his radar too.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosRam Temple Donation Case: SIT Files 74,000-Page Chargesheet Against 8 AccusedSahil Wakode Death Case: CCTV Footage Surfaces; IIT Bombay Sets Up 10-Member Probe Panel’Illegal’ Changes to IT System Row: Timeline of Sandhu & Joshi’s Objections Over Form 6, ECINet, SIRVivek Joshi & SS Sandhu: The 2 Election Commissioners Who ‘Raised Objections’ Over SIR, Form-6CJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament’This Is a Scandalous Story’: Opposition Attacks Gyanesh Kumar After Report Claims ECI Dissent123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026Bank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationTelangana school holidayMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

FSSAI regulation on analogue paneer, cheese NEW DELHI: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed restricting the use of the term “paneer” for analogue paneer and cheese products, seeking to prevent consumers from being misled about the nature and composition of the food they buy.The proposed amendment would affect food business operators, including hotels, restaurants and catering services, that use substitutes for traditional dairy-based paneer or cheese products.Under the proposal, products made using paneer or cheese analogues would have to be clearly identified to consumers. The FSSAI said businesses using such products must disclose the information prominently at consumer touchpoints, including menu cards and packaging labels, in line with the Food Safety and Standards (labelling and display) Regulations.The FSSAI notification said: “The amendment is proposed in the following regulation to restrict manufacturing and sale of analogue product as paneer so as to prevent misleading of consumer’s regarding the nature and composition of the product. Products already licensed or registered under ‘Analogue in Dairy Context’ category shall discontinue the use of the term “Paneer” in their nomenclature, labelling or marketing.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelines”The proposal also states that products already licensed or registered under the ‘Analogue in Dairy Context’ category would have to discontinue the use of the term “Paneer” in their nomenclature, labelling or marketing.The FSSAI said the proposed changes are aimed at ensuring consumers are not misled about products that are not traditional dairy-based paneer or cheese.The proposal comes amid increased food safety inspections and regulatory scrutiny over the labelling and composition of food products.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorAbhishek MishraAbhishek Mishra is a Digital Content Producer at The Times of India, working with the news desk. He writes with a keen eye on foreign policy, defence developments, and the shifting currents of geopolitics-and yes, Indian politics always finds a way onto his radar too.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosRam Temple Donation Case: SIT Files 74,000-Page Chargesheet Against 8 AccusedSahil Wakode Death Case: CCTV Footage Surfaces; IIT Bombay Sets Up 10-Member Probe Panel’Illegal’ Changes to IT System Row: Timeline of Sandhu & Joshi’s Objections Over Form 6, ECINet, SIRVivek Joshi & SS Sandhu: The 2 Election Commissioners Who ‘Raised Objections’ Over SIR, Form-6CJP Takes On Election Commission After Report; Will This Lead To Next Jantar Mantar? | WatchCEC, ECs And The Power To Decide: What Happens When Election Commissioners Disagree?ECI’s ERONET Controversy: Voter Database Row, Software Errors & 17.6 Million Notices Raise QuestionsJaishankar Meets Rubio At UNGA, Raises India’s Concerns Over Trump’s Russia Sanctions Bill ImpactBJP Defends Election Commission Over SIR Row, Challenges Opposition To Impeach CEC In Parliament’This Is a Scandalous Story’: Opposition Attacks Gyanesh Kumar After Report Claims ECI Dissent123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026Bank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationTelangana school holidayMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0