September 24, 2026

Rahul Gandhi held a video call with Sahil Wakode’s parents to offer support after their son’s death. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi spoke to the parents of deceased IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode and assured them of all possible help in their fight to seek justice for their son, party sources said told PTI on Thrusday.Rahul Gandhi made a video call to Ravindra and Sonali Wakode while they were travelling to Mumbai from Washim district, the sources told PTI. During the nearly 17 minute call, Gandhi told the couple that he was with them and assured them of all help.Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib and Maharashtra unit chief Shivraj More were also present with Sahil’s parents during the call.The conversation comes amid growing protests and demands for an independent probe into Sahil’s death. His parents have alleged that their son faced caste based discrimination and mental harassment at IIT Bombay and have sought action against those they hold responsible.Sahil, a second year BTech student at IIT Bombay, was found hanging in his hostel room on the evening of September 18. His death occurred hours after he was allegedly caught using a mobile phone to access ChatGPT during a mid semester examination.The examination incident became a key focus of the case after Sahil was allegedly stopped by a professor and taken out of the examination hall. CCTV footage from the hall, aired by some television channels on Wednesday, reportedly shows Sahil’s movements before the professor approaches him and leads him away.The Mumbai Police Crime Branch is investigating the death. An FIR has been registered alleging abetment to suicide on grounds of caste discrimination. Faculty member Suryanarayan Doolla, who has been named in the FIR, has been sent on leave to facilitate an impartial investigation.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesIIT Bombay has maintained that its SC/ST cell had not received a complaint from Sahil before his death. The institute has also constituted a 10 member committee to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident.Sahil’s parents have announced that they will begin an indefinite hunger strike outside the IIT Bombay gate from 11 am on Thursday. Their demands include a thorough investigation into the circumstances preceding their son’s death and action based on the findings of the probe.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorAryan SinghAryan Singh is a journalist with The Times of India, covering breaking news, defence and global conflicts. An alumnus of the IIMC, he tracks the people, weapons and geopolitics behind the headlines, with a focus on India’s national security, military affairs and conflicts shaping the world.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosVivek 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 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 Ties123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026NSE IPOSpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationUPI transactionsOpenAI breachCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyConnor McDavid WifePowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna02 mins mins
Rahul Gandhi held a video call with Sahil Wakode’s parents to offer support after their son’s death. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi spoke to the parents of deceased IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode and assured them of all possible help in their fight to seek justice for their son, party sources said told PTI on Thrusday.Rahul Gandhi made a video call to Ravindra and Sonali Wakode while they were travelling to Mumbai from Washim district, the sources told PTI. During the nearly 17 minute call, Gandhi told the couple that he was with them and assured them of all help.Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib and Maharashtra unit chief Shivraj More were also present with Sahil’s parents during the call.The conversation comes amid growing protests and demands for an independent probe into Sahil’s death. His parents have alleged that their son faced caste based discrimination and mental harassment at IIT Bombay and have sought action against those they hold responsible.Sahil, a second year BTech student at IIT Bombay, was found hanging in his hostel room on the evening of September 18. His death occurred hours after he was allegedly caught using a mobile phone to access ChatGPT during a mid semester examination.The examination incident became a key focus of the case after Sahil was allegedly stopped by a professor and taken out of the examination hall. CCTV footage from the hall, aired by some television channels on Wednesday, reportedly shows Sahil’s movements before the professor approaches him and leads him away.The Mumbai Police Crime Branch is investigating the death. An FIR has been registered alleging abetment to suicide on grounds of caste discrimination. Faculty member Suryanarayan Doolla, who has been named in the FIR, has been sent on leave to facilitate an impartial investigation.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesIIT Bombay has maintained that its SC/ST cell had not received a complaint from Sahil before his death. The institute has also constituted a 10 member committee to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident.Sahil’s parents have announced that they will begin an indefinite hunger strike outside the IIT Bombay gate from 11 am on Thursday. Their demands include a thorough investigation into the circumstances preceding their son’s death and action based on the findings of the probe.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorAryan SinghAryan Singh is a journalist with The Times of India, covering breaking news, defence and global conflicts. An alumnus of the IIMC, he tracks the people, weapons and geopolitics behind the headlines, with a focus on India’s national security, military affairs and conflicts shaping the world.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosVivek 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 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 Ties123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026NSE IPOSpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationUPI transactionsOpenAI breachCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyConnor McDavid WifePowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court


Rahul Gandhi speaks to IIT-B student Sahil Wakode’s parents, assures all help
Rahul Gandhi held a video call with Sahil Wakode’s parents to offer support after their son’s death.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi spoke to the parents of deceased IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode and assured them of all possible help in their fight to seek justice for their son, party sources said told PTI on Thrusday.Rahul Gandhi made a video call to Ravindra and Sonali Wakode while they were travelling to Mumbai from Washim district, the sources told PTI. During the nearly 17 minute call, Gandhi told the couple that he was with them and assured them of all help.Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib and Maharashtra unit chief Shivraj More were also present with Sahil’s parents during the call.The conversation comes amid growing protests and demands for an independent probe into Sahil’s death. His parents have alleged that their son faced caste based discrimination and mental harassment at IIT Bombay and have sought action against those they hold responsible.Sahil, a second year BTech student at IIT Bombay, was found hanging in his hostel room on the evening of September 18. His death occurred hours after he was allegedly caught using a mobile phone to access ChatGPT during a mid semester examination.The examination incident became a key focus of the case after Sahil was allegedly stopped by a professor and taken out of the examination hall. CCTV footage from the hall, aired by some television channels on Wednesday, reportedly shows Sahil’s movements before the professor approaches him and leads him away.The Mumbai Police Crime Branch is investigating the death. An FIR has been registered alleging abetment to suicide on grounds of caste discrimination. Faculty member Suryanarayan Doolla, who has been named in the FIR, has been sent on leave to facilitate an impartial investigation.

Share your thoughts in the comments

Related News

Rahul Gandhi addresses presser on SIR row NEW DELHI: Leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Thursday took aim at the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar after reports of differences within the poll body over Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls sparked a political stir.He accused the CEC of “vote chori, kanun chori, sanstha chori (vote theft, law theft, institutional theft)”, calling it an “act against nation”.He claimed that all elections were “rigged”, further questioning why PM Narendra Modi and Amit Shah do not face anti-incumbency.”I come from a political family, and I have spent more than 50 years in a political family… In India, there is a fundamental force called anti-incumbency that very quickly starts to resist any government. It does not spare anybody. Indira Gandhi won the Bangladesh war, was at the height of her popularity, and then suddenly, within a year or two, massive anti-incumbency, massive pressure,” he said addressing a press conference.”The same exact thing happens to leader after leader after leader. Happens to Congress leaders; it happens to regional parties, but for some reason, it never happens to Mr. Narendra Modi, does not happen to Mr. Shah, does not happen to the BJP,” he added.”The enemies of the Constitution have been exposed. Justice will be served,” Rahul had said before the presser.An Indian Express report has highlighted differences among members of the EC over the SIR of electoral rolls. The report said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised formal objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10-month period against decisions and orders related to electoral-roll processes.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe Election Commission, however, described the queries and observations raised by its members as part of its routine internal process. It said written notes, technical inputs and internal scrutiny were standard mechanisms to check legal compliance and protect voters’ rights.The ECI further said all decisions taken by the Commission, including those related to SIR, had full legal backing and stressed that its final decisions were unanimous.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorAastha JhaAastha Jha is a writer at The Times of India, covering politics. She also writes on business, global affairs, social issues, with a focus on policy, governance and their impact on everyday lives. Her work brings together reportage and analysis, tracking developments in India and abroad while examining the broader social and economic currents shaping public discourse.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

Rahul Gandhi addresses presser on SIR row NEW DELHI: Leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Thursday took aim at the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar after reports of differences within the poll body over Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls sparked a political stir.He accused the CEC of “vote chori, kanun chori, sanstha chori (vote theft, law theft, institutional theft)”, calling it an “act against nation”.He claimed that all elections were “rigged”, further questioning why PM Narendra Modi and Amit Shah do not face anti-incumbency.”I come from a political family, and I have spent more than 50 years in a political family… In India, there is a fundamental force called anti-incumbency that very quickly starts to resist any government. It does not spare anybody. Indira Gandhi won the Bangladesh war, was at the height of her popularity, and then suddenly, within a year or two, massive anti-incumbency, massive pressure,” he said addressing a press conference.”The same exact thing happens to leader after leader after leader. Happens to Congress leaders; it happens to regional parties, but for some reason, it never happens to Mr. Narendra Modi, does not happen to Mr. Shah, does not happen to the BJP,” he added.”The enemies of the Constitution have been exposed. Justice will be served,” Rahul had said before the presser.An Indian Express report has highlighted differences among members of the EC over the SIR of electoral rolls. The report said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised formal objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10-month period against decisions and orders related to electoral-roll processes.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe Election Commission, however, described the queries and observations raised by its members as part of its routine internal process. It said written notes, technical inputs and internal scrutiny were standard mechanisms to check legal compliance and protect voters’ rights.The ECI further said all decisions taken by the Commission, including those related to SIR, had full legal backing and stressed that its final decisions were unanimous.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorAastha JhaAastha Jha is a writer at The Times of India, covering politics. She also writes on business, global affairs, social issues, with a focus on policy, governance and their impact on everyday lives. Her work brings together reportage and analysis, tracking developments in India and abroad while examining the broader social and economic currents shaping public discourse.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
From TN Seshan’s battle over the Election Commission’s structure to Ashok Lavasa’s dissent in 2019, the poll panel has seen internal disagreements emerge into the public domain. NEW DELHI: The Election Commission is facing a fresh political storm over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, with the opposition demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation following a report in The Indian Express on differences within the poll panel over the exercise.According to the report, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to SIR-related decisions, including those concerning voter deletions and electoral roll data. The report has brought into focus a question that has surfaced at different points in the Election Commission’s history: what happens when members of the poll panel disagree over how it should exercise its powers?There have been two prominent instances when such differences moved beyond the commission’s internal proceedings and became matters of public and judicial scrutiny. In the 1990s, Chief Election Commissioner TN Seshan challenged the creation of a multi-member Election Commission and the appointment of two Election Commissioners alongside him. In 2019, Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa publicly dissented from the majority view on complaints alleging Model Code of Conduct violations by senior political leaders.When Seshan challenged other Election CommissionersTN Seshan was appointed Chief Election Commissioner in December 1990 and became known for his strict enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and his assertion of the Election Commission’s constitutional powers. The structure of the commission changed in October 1993, when the government moved to make the poll panel a three-member body. Watch How T.N. Seshan changed the face of Election CommissionOn October 1, 1993, the President promulgated an ordinance providing for two Election Commissioners in addition to the CEC. On the same day, MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy were appointed as Election Commissioners. Seshan challenged the move in the Supreme Court, alleging that the appointments were intended to dilute his authority and “sideline” him. The government defended the move, maintaining that the Constitution permitted a multi-member Election Commission.The dispute soon spilled beyond the courtroom. The Supreme Court’s eventual judgment recorded “unpleasant exchanges” between Seshan and Krishnamurthy at a meeting in October 1993, noting that allegations and counter-allegations had been made by the two commissioners. Gill later spoke publicly about the strained relationship, recalling his attempts to establish contact with Seshan after the appointments.”The CEC, however, acted as if we don’t exist,” Gill famously said in 1995.Seshan approached the Supreme Court on October 26, 1993, challenging the ordinance and the appointments. The case raised a larger constitutional question: could the Chief Election Commissioner exercise overriding authority in a commission that now had two other members, or were all three meant to function collectively?1995 verdict: CEC not above other ECsThe constitutional battle ended with a Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment on July 14, 1995, which upheld the law providing for a multi-member Election Commission as well as the appointments of Gill and Krishnamurthy.The court rejected the proposition that the CEC’s view would automatically prevail over those of the other Election Commissioners. “If the CEC is considered to be a superior in the sense that his word is final, he would render the ECs non-functional or ornamental,” the court observed.The judgment also commented on the personal friction that had accompanied the constitutional dispute. “It is a pity they did not try to work as a team,” the court said, adding that “suspicion and distrust got the better of them”, while expressing the hope that the commissioners would work with mutual respect and confidence.The verdict thus established the framework for the functioning of a multi-member Election Commission, making clear that the CEC could not treat the other Election Commissioners as subordinate members whose views could simply be overridden.2019: Lavasa’s dissent More than two decades later, another disagreement within the Election Commission became public during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The commission then comprised CEC Sunil Arora and Election Commissioners Ashok Lavasa and Sushil Chandra, with Lavasa disagreeing with the majority view in several complaints alleging Model Code violations by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah.The majority gave PM Modi and Shah clean chits in the complaints, while Lavasa wanted his dissenting views to be recorded and included in the commission’s orders. The disagreement subsequently became a dispute over whether a minority opinion should form part of the final order issued by the poll panel.Ashok Lavasa resigned before he was made CEC. Lavasa eventually informed Arora that he would stay away from proceedings concerning MCC complaints. In a letter, he said his minority decisions were being “suppressed” in a manner contrary to conventions followed by multi-member statutory bodies and wrote: “In the present circumstances, I am left with no option but to keep away from such proceedings.”‘We are not clones’: Sunil AroraThe dispute became public during the election campaign, prompting then CEC Sunil Arora to respond. On May 18, 2019, Arora said the three members of the Commission were not expected to agree on every issue.”The three members of ECI are not expected to be template or clones of each other,” Arora said, describing the controversy as “unsavoury and avoidable”. He also noted that differences of opinion had existed within the Commission in the past.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe full Commission subsequently discussed how dissent should be recorded. Lavasa’s demand that minority views be made part of the final MCC orders was not accepted. Instead, the commission decided that the views of all members would be recorded in its proceedings, while the final order would reflect the majority decision.Lavasa resigns before he could become CECOn August 18, 2020, Lavasa resigned as Election Commissioner after being appointed vice-president of the Asian Development Bank. He had joined the Election Commission in January 2018 and still had more than two years left in his tenure. He was also next in line to become Chief Election Commissioner.The Election Commission formally bid farewell to Lavasa later that month, with Arora saying the ECI’s loss was the Asian Development Bank’s gain.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorPallaviNews desk journalist, digital, at The Times of India, with a focus on Indian politics. Over a decade of chasing stories, taming headlines and arguing with commas like they’re part of the opposition. Tracks elections, policy pivots, party drama and the fine print of power, where every word can tilt the narrative. Believes good journalism is clarity under pressure, ideally filed before the next breaking alert crashes in. Powered by deadlines, context, sharp edits and a steady supply of strong tea.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

From TN Seshan’s battle over the Election Commission’s structure to Ashok Lavasa’s dissent in 2019, the poll panel has seen internal disagreements emerge into the public domain. NEW DELHI: The Election Commission is facing a fresh political storm over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, with the opposition demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation following a report in The Indian Express on differences within the poll panel over the exercise.According to the report, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to SIR-related decisions, including those concerning voter deletions and electoral roll data. The report has brought into focus a question that has surfaced at different points in the Election Commission’s history: what happens when members of the poll panel disagree over how it should exercise its powers?There have been two prominent instances when such differences moved beyond the commission’s internal proceedings and became matters of public and judicial scrutiny. In the 1990s, Chief Election Commissioner TN Seshan challenged the creation of a multi-member Election Commission and the appointment of two Election Commissioners alongside him. In 2019, Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa publicly dissented from the majority view on complaints alleging Model Code of Conduct violations by senior political leaders.When Seshan challenged other Election CommissionersTN Seshan was appointed Chief Election Commissioner in December 1990 and became known for his strict enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and his assertion of the Election Commission’s constitutional powers. The structure of the commission changed in October 1993, when the government moved to make the poll panel a three-member body. Watch How T.N. Seshan changed the face of Election CommissionOn October 1, 1993, the President promulgated an ordinance providing for two Election Commissioners in addition to the CEC. On the same day, MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy were appointed as Election Commissioners. Seshan challenged the move in the Supreme Court, alleging that the appointments were intended to dilute his authority and “sideline” him. The government defended the move, maintaining that the Constitution permitted a multi-member Election Commission.The dispute soon spilled beyond the courtroom. The Supreme Court’s eventual judgment recorded “unpleasant exchanges” between Seshan and Krishnamurthy at a meeting in October 1993, noting that allegations and counter-allegations had been made by the two commissioners. Gill later spoke publicly about the strained relationship, recalling his attempts to establish contact with Seshan after the appointments.”The CEC, however, acted as if we don’t exist,” Gill famously said in 1995.Seshan approached the Supreme Court on October 26, 1993, challenging the ordinance and the appointments. The case raised a larger constitutional question: could the Chief Election Commissioner exercise overriding authority in a commission that now had two other members, or were all three meant to function collectively?1995 verdict: CEC not above other ECsThe constitutional battle ended with a Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment on July 14, 1995, which upheld the law providing for a multi-member Election Commission as well as the appointments of Gill and Krishnamurthy.The court rejected the proposition that the CEC’s view would automatically prevail over those of the other Election Commissioners. “If the CEC is considered to be a superior in the sense that his word is final, he would render the ECs non-functional or ornamental,” the court observed.The judgment also commented on the personal friction that had accompanied the constitutional dispute. “It is a pity they did not try to work as a team,” the court said, adding that “suspicion and distrust got the better of them”, while expressing the hope that the commissioners would work with mutual respect and confidence.The verdict thus established the framework for the functioning of a multi-member Election Commission, making clear that the CEC could not treat the other Election Commissioners as subordinate members whose views could simply be overridden.2019: Lavasa’s dissent More than two decades later, another disagreement within the Election Commission became public during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The commission then comprised CEC Sunil Arora and Election Commissioners Ashok Lavasa and Sushil Chandra, with Lavasa disagreeing with the majority view in several complaints alleging Model Code violations by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah.The majority gave PM Modi and Shah clean chits in the complaints, while Lavasa wanted his dissenting views to be recorded and included in the commission’s orders. The disagreement subsequently became a dispute over whether a minority opinion should form part of the final order issued by the poll panel.Ashok Lavasa resigned before he was made CEC. Lavasa eventually informed Arora that he would stay away from proceedings concerning MCC complaints. In a letter, he said his minority decisions were being “suppressed” in a manner contrary to conventions followed by multi-member statutory bodies and wrote: “In the present circumstances, I am left with no option but to keep away from such proceedings.”‘We are not clones’: Sunil AroraThe dispute became public during the election campaign, prompting then CEC Sunil Arora to respond. On May 18, 2019, Arora said the three members of the Commission were not expected to agree on every issue.”The three members of ECI are not expected to be template or clones of each other,” Arora said, describing the controversy as “unsavoury and avoidable”. He also noted that differences of opinion had existed within the Commission in the past.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe full Commission subsequently discussed how dissent should be recorded. Lavasa’s demand that minority views be made part of the final MCC orders was not accepted. Instead, the commission decided that the views of all members would be recorded in its proceedings, while the final order would reflect the majority decision.Lavasa resigns before he could become CECOn August 18, 2020, Lavasa resigned as Election Commissioner after being appointed vice-president of the Asian Development Bank. He had joined the Election Commission in January 2018 and still had more than two years left in his tenure. He was also next in line to become Chief Election Commissioner.The Election Commission formally bid farewell to Lavasa later that month, with Arora saying the ECI’s loss was the Asian Development Bank’s gain.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorPallaviNews desk journalist, digital, at The Times of India, with a focus on Indian politics. Over a decade of chasing stories, taming headlines and arguing with commas like they’re part of the opposition. Tracks elections, policy pivots, party drama and the fine print of power, where every word can tilt the narrative. Believes good journalism is clarity under pressure, ideally filed before the next breaking alert crashes in. Powered by deadlines, context, sharp edits and a steady supply of strong tea.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
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