September 24, 2026

Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. NEW DELHI: Supreme Court said Wednesday allegations of Bar Council of India’s assets being transferred to a trust created by the BCI chairperson are a matter of concern and it has to be examined. SC also agreed to examine whether it has the power to establish and regulate law colleges and universities.The court was hearing petitions questioning the functioning of BCI-Pearl First Trust and the establishment of law colleges by the trust. It sought BCI’s response on the issues within two weeks. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked how BCI can be considered an expert body to regulate legal education when law scholars and academics are better suited to deal with academic matters. “How can BCI regulate law colleges? That’s the real question. Their statutory role comes into existence only after one gets a licence. So the issue is whether law schools can be regulated. We’d like to examine whether BCI has the power to control and regulate universities/law colleges,” the bench said.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesAdvocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for petitioner Girish Mittal, said BCI passed a resolution in 2016 and abolished an earlier trust and transferred the funds to a new trust ‘Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research’. They said the trust established one law college each in Goa and Andhra Pradesh. BCI, however, said the Bar body has passed a resolution providing that there would be no lifetime trustees and that the tenure of trustees would be coterminous with their membership of BCI.SC had earlier said BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra’s position was only “pro tem” until a freshly constituted lawyers’ body elects its office bearers. Mishra was first elected as BCI chairperson till 2012. Though he briefly demitted office in 2014, he returned as chairperson in Nov that year and has remained in the post since then.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
Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. NEW DELHI: Supreme Court said Wednesday allegations of Bar Council of India’s assets being transferred to a trust created by the BCI chairperson are a matter of concern and it has to be examined. SC also agreed to examine whether it has the power to establish and regulate law colleges and universities.The court was hearing petitions questioning the functioning of BCI-Pearl First Trust and the establishment of law colleges by the trust. It sought BCI’s response on the issues within two weeks. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked how BCI can be considered an expert body to regulate legal education when law scholars and academics are better suited to deal with academic matters. “How can BCI regulate law colleges? That’s the real question. Their statutory role comes into existence only after one gets a licence. So the issue is whether law schools can be regulated. We’d like to examine whether BCI has the power to control and regulate universities/law colleges,” the bench said.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesAdvocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for petitioner Girish Mittal, said BCI passed a resolution in 2016 and abolished an earlier trust and transferred the funds to a new trust ‘Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research’. They said the trust established one law college each in Goa and Andhra Pradesh. BCI, however, said the Bar body has passed a resolution providing that there would be no lifetime trustees and that the tenure of trustees would be coterminous with their membership of BCI.SC had earlier said BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra’s position was only “pro tem” until a freshly constituted lawyers’ body elects its office bearers. Mishra was first elected as BCI chairperson till 2012. Though he briefly demitted office in 2014, he returned as chairperson in Nov that year and has remained in the post since then.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


Allegations of transfer of BCI assets to trust matter of concern: Supreme Court
Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court said Wednesday allegations of Bar Council of India’s assets being transferred to a trust created by the BCI chairperson are a matter of concern and it has to be examined. SC also agreed to examine whether it has the power to establish and regulate law colleges and universities.The court was hearing petitions questioning the functioning of BCI-Pearl First Trust and the establishment of law colleges by the trust. It sought BCI’s response on the issues within two weeks. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked how BCI can be considered an expert body to regulate legal education when law scholars and academics are better suited to deal with academic matters. “How can BCI regulate law colleges? That’s the real question. Their statutory role comes into existence only after one gets a licence. So the issue is whether law schools can be regulated. We’d like to examine whether BCI has the power to control and regulate universities/law colleges,” the bench said.

Share your thoughts in the comments

Related News

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission to decide at the earliest which of the two rival factions of the All India Trinamool Congress will get the party’s name and symbol.Hearing a plea filed by Mamata Banerjee, the top court asked the poll panel to inform it by Monday when it expected to take a final decision on the dispute.The Supreme Court also referred to the Shiv Sena factional dispute and said the row between the two AITC factions should be decided expeditiously.The development comes days after the Election Commission temporarily allotted Mamata Banerjee’s faction the name “Mamata All India Trinamool Congress” and the “football player” symbol.The rival faction was allotted the name “Democratic Trinamool Congress” and the “envelope” symbol.Earlier, in an interim order, the poll panel froze the All India Trinamool Congress name and its “flowers and grass” symbol after recognising a factional dispute within the party. Neither faction can use the original name or symbol until the dispute is finally settled.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe temporary arrangement will apply to the upcoming bypolls, with candidates of the two factions contesting under the separate names and symbols allotted by the Commission.The Election Commission has been hearing competing claims over control of the party, its name and election symbol. Both sides have submitted documents and appeared before the Commission during the proceedings.The dispute reached the poll panel after rival groups staked claims to control the TMC. The commission subsequently sought submissions on issues including organisational control, authorised office-bearers, party assets, the party name and its election symbol.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 MediaVideosSahil 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 DissentSIR, Form 6, Voter Rolls: EC Responds After Report Flags Objections By 2 Election Commissioners123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026NSE IPOSpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationUPI transactionsMumbai-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 asked the Election Commission to decide at the earliest which of the two rival factions of the All India Trinamool Congress will get the party’s name and symbol.Hearing a plea filed by Mamata Banerjee, the top court asked the poll panel to inform it by Monday when it expected to take a final decision on the dispute.The Supreme Court also referred to the Shiv Sena factional dispute and said the row between the two AITC factions should be decided expeditiously.The development comes days after the Election Commission temporarily allotted Mamata Banerjee’s faction the name “Mamata All India Trinamool Congress” and the “football player” symbol.The rival faction was allotted the name “Democratic Trinamool Congress” and the “envelope” symbol.Earlier, in an interim order, the poll panel froze the All India Trinamool Congress name and its “flowers and grass” symbol after recognising a factional dispute within the party. Neither faction can use the original name or symbol until the dispute is finally settled.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe temporary arrangement will apply to the upcoming bypolls, with candidates of the two factions contesting under the separate names and symbols allotted by the Commission.The Election Commission has been hearing competing claims over control of the party, its name and election symbol. Both sides have submitted documents and appeared before the Commission during the proceedings.The dispute reached the poll panel after rival groups staked claims to control the TMC. The commission subsequently sought submissions on issues including organisational control, authorised office-bearers, party assets, the party name and its election symbol.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 MediaVideosSahil 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 DissentSIR, Form 6, Voter Rolls: EC Responds After Report Flags Objections By 2 Election Commissioners123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026NSE IPOSpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationUPI transactionsMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0
Cong MP Priyanka Gandhi targets EC over SIR, alleges ‘voter roll tampering’. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Thursday slammed the Chief Election Commissioner, alleging that Gyanesh Kumar should be “criminally prosecuted” for “tampering with electoral rolls and deleting voters’ names.”Her remarks came a day after The Indian Express published a report claiming that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.Speaking to reporters in Wayanad, Kerala, Priyanka Gandhi said, “Anybody who plays around with the process, the democratic process of our elections is committing treason against this nation. That is our very clear stand. I do not think anybody in that position should have legal protection in the way that he has. The Chief Election Commissioner has. If they have done illegal acts because tampering with the voters’ rolls, deleting, I believe, 13 crore voters is a criminal act against democracy, against the Constitution and against the nation.””Since criminal acts fall under a particular law, and people are usually tried and prosecuted for doing those criminal acts, I do not see why the Election Commissioner has to have any protection against it. If he has done an illegal act, he has been fully aware that this is happening under his nose. His colleagues have brought it to his attention. He has ignored it and intentionally allowed an unfair election to take place. He should be criminally prosecuted just like any other criminal, and he should be tried for treason. This is my very clear stand,” she added.Earlier on Wednesday, Priyanka Gandhi had also called the issue “an extremely serious” one for democracy.”This is an extremely serious issue for our democracy. If there are no elections, then where is democracy? If elections are unfair and rigged in any manner, then the Election Commission is assisting in that. If the Election Commissioner is not only aware of it but also allowing it to happen, then it is a very serious assault on democracy. It is an act of treason.”The remarks followed the Indian Express report, which said Sandhu and Joshi had objected at least 14 times to decisions taken in the Commission’s name without, according to the report, their knowledge or approval. The reported objections covered issues including voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6 and the handling of the electoral-roll database.The ECI rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to a division within the Commission. ECI officials said all decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously with the approval of all three commissioners.In a statement, the poll panel said, “The ECI is a constitutional body that functions under the strict mandate of Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions. The Commission operates as a multi-member constitutional body. Written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices designed to ensure complete transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour. All actions of ECI have been in accordance with laws and instructions of the Commission. All official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry full legal sanctions and follow established statutory procedures.”The Commission further said, “Any operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice aimed at safeguarding voter rights. The suggestions given by the Commissioners were for further improving the electoral processes,” adding that differing views and observations were a normal part of institutional deliberations.BJP defends poll panelBJP national spokesperson and MP Sambit Patra defended the functioning of the Election Commission, saying discussions among the three commissioners were part of the democratic process.”Look at the situation: if the three Election Commissioners do not communicate with each other, if there is no exchange of views or consultation, and they simply agree to everything, then the opposition parties claim it is a dictatorship. They say this government appointed these three commissioners; they just say yes. Now, there have been 14 instances of correspondence among the three of them, official deliberations, as far as we gather from the media. It is not as if the Bharatiya Janata Party goes and reads these letters; rather, reports in the media indicate that official deliberations took place among the three, which is a sign of a healthy democracy,” he said.Patra added, “I would say that today, all the opposition parties have fallen into a trap, the trap of claiming that the Election Commission and the government were acting dictatorially. On the contrary, I would say this is pure democracy. Deliberations are taking place, and the Election Commission has stated very clearly in the very first paragraph of its document that, following all official democratic deliberations, the final outcome, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), was achieved with unanimity.””In other words, all three Commissioners were unanimous; there was no difference of opinion or dissent among them,” he said.”They were all on the same page. In short, the situation today is that neither the Election Commission of India nor any constitutional body in India is under dictatorial rule; they are functioning democratically and, indeed, upholding the country’s democracy. By operating democratically, these constitutional institutions are safeguarding democracy,” Patra added.Opposition parties continued to target the Election Commission over the issue. Earlier, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesRahul Gandhi described alleged “vote chori” as a “crime against the Indian people” and an attack on the Constitution.In a post on X, Rahul Gandhi said, “Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our constitution. The BJP, RSS and EC who organised it have committed an act of treason. Justice will be served.”In a video, he also addressed the Election Commission and election officials, saying, “I am clearly telling the Election Commission and election officers: What you are doing is wrong. This is treason; it is against the nation. Do not forget this. The time will come! We will catch you! You will not be spared.”Meanwhile, ECI sources maintained that all decisions taken by the poll panel, including those related to SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.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 MediaVideos’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 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 Sharjah123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026NSE IPOSpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationUPI transactionsMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Cong MP Priyanka Gandhi targets EC over SIR, alleges ‘voter roll tampering’. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Thursday slammed the Chief Election Commissioner, alleging that Gyanesh Kumar should be “criminally prosecuted” for “tampering with electoral rolls and deleting voters’ names.”Her remarks came a day after The Indian Express published a report claiming that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.Speaking to reporters in Wayanad, Kerala, Priyanka Gandhi said, “Anybody who plays around with the process, the democratic process of our elections is committing treason against this nation. That is our very clear stand. I do not think anybody in that position should have legal protection in the way that he has. The Chief Election Commissioner has. If they have done illegal acts because tampering with the voters’ rolls, deleting, I believe, 13 crore voters is a criminal act against democracy, against the Constitution and against the nation.””Since criminal acts fall under a particular law, and people are usually tried and prosecuted for doing those criminal acts, I do not see why the Election Commissioner has to have any protection against it. If he has done an illegal act, he has been fully aware that this is happening under his nose. His colleagues have brought it to his attention. He has ignored it and intentionally allowed an unfair election to take place. He should be criminally prosecuted just like any other criminal, and he should be tried for treason. This is my very clear stand,” she added.Earlier on Wednesday, Priyanka Gandhi had also called the issue “an extremely serious” one for democracy.”This is an extremely serious issue for our democracy. If there are no elections, then where is democracy? If elections are unfair and rigged in any manner, then the Election Commission is assisting in that. If the Election Commissioner is not only aware of it but also allowing it to happen, then it is a very serious assault on democracy. It is an act of treason.”The remarks followed the Indian Express report, which said Sandhu and Joshi had objected at least 14 times to decisions taken in the Commission’s name without, according to the report, their knowledge or approval. The reported objections covered issues including voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6 and the handling of the electoral-roll database.The ECI rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to a division within the Commission. ECI officials said all decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously with the approval of all three commissioners.In a statement, the poll panel said, “The ECI is a constitutional body that functions under the strict mandate of Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions. The Commission operates as a multi-member constitutional body. Written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices designed to ensure complete transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour. All actions of ECI have been in accordance with laws and instructions of the Commission. All official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry full legal sanctions and follow established statutory procedures.”The Commission further said, “Any operational queries or inputs raised by Commission members during draft stages are part of standard administrative practice aimed at safeguarding voter rights. The suggestions given by the Commissioners were for further improving the electoral processes,” adding that differing views and observations were a normal part of institutional deliberations.BJP defends poll panelBJP national spokesperson and MP Sambit Patra defended the functioning of the Election Commission, saying discussions among the three commissioners were part of the democratic process.”Look at the situation: if the three Election Commissioners do not communicate with each other, if there is no exchange of views or consultation, and they simply agree to everything, then the opposition parties claim it is a dictatorship. They say this government appointed these three commissioners; they just say yes. Now, there have been 14 instances of correspondence among the three of them, official deliberations, as far as we gather from the media. It is not as if the Bharatiya Janata Party goes and reads these letters; rather, reports in the media indicate that official deliberations took place among the three, which is a sign of a healthy democracy,” he said.Patra added, “I would say that today, all the opposition parties have fallen into a trap, the trap of claiming that the Election Commission and the government were acting dictatorially. On the contrary, I would say this is pure democracy. Deliberations are taking place, and the Election Commission has stated very clearly in the very first paragraph of its document that, following all official democratic deliberations, the final outcome, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), was achieved with unanimity.””In other words, all three Commissioners were unanimous; there was no difference of opinion or dissent among them,” he said.”They were all on the same page. In short, the situation today is that neither the Election Commission of India nor any constitutional body in India is under dictatorial rule; they are functioning democratically and, indeed, upholding the country’s democracy. By operating democratically, these constitutional institutions are safeguarding democracy,” Patra added.Opposition parties continued to target the Election Commission over the issue. Earlier, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesRahul Gandhi described alleged “vote chori” as a “crime against the Indian people” and an attack on the Constitution.In a post on X, Rahul Gandhi said, “Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our constitution. The BJP, RSS and EC who organised it have committed an act of treason. Justice will be served.”In a video, he also addressed the Election Commission and election officials, saying, “I am clearly telling the Election Commission and election officers: What you are doing is wrong. This is treason; it is against the nation. Do not forget this. The time will come! We will catch you! You will not be spared.”Meanwhile, ECI sources maintained that all decisions taken by the poll panel, including those related to SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.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 MediaVideos’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 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 Sharjah123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026NSE IPOSpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationUPI transactionsMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0
Picture credit: Matthew Aaron VanDyke’s Social Media handles and official website (file photo) NEW DELHI: An NIA court in Delhi Wednesday granted bail to six Ukrainian nationals arrested in March this year for allegedly running a training camp for ethnic armed rebels in India and Myanmar.The court, which ordered their release on a cash bond of Rs 1 lakh each, also discharged them from offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act following after the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), which deals with the immigration matters involving foreign nationals, settled the offences on payment of a penalty of Rs 5.5 lakh each.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe offences, which pertained to illegal entry and visa violations, are compoundable at the level of the FRRO.Special judge Prashant Sharma granted them default bail on grounds of parity with their American co-accused Matthew Aaron Van Dyke.While granting bail to Dyke on Sept 18, the judge had dismissed the NIA’s opposition, observing that even if the probe was far from over, “at this stage it cannot be concluded that applicant/ accused Matthew Aaron Vandyke is not entitled for default bail”.Default bail is provisioned in the UAPA if the probe agency doesn’t file charge sheet containing offences under the anti-terror law with 180 days of arresting the accused. Following this, the court had directed that the other six accused could also seek default bail.Earlier this month, the agency filed a charge sheet which did not mention provisions of the UAPA, 1967, which was invoked in the initial FIR.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorKoushiki SahaKoushiki Saha, a trainee journalist currently reporting for The Times of India, covers urban governance, infrastructure lapses, public grievances, and municipal policies with clarity and compassion. Still learning every day, she draws insights from fieldwork, lived experiences, and holding authorities accountable through persistent, people-focused reporting.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’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 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 Sharjah123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026NSE IPOSpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationUPI transactionsMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Picture credit: Matthew Aaron VanDyke’s Social Media handles and official website (file photo) NEW DELHI: An NIA court in Delhi Wednesday granted bail to six Ukrainian nationals arrested in March this year for allegedly running a training camp for ethnic armed rebels in India and Myanmar.The court, which ordered their release on a cash bond of Rs 1 lakh each, also discharged them from offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act following after the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), which deals with the immigration matters involving foreign nationals, settled the offences on payment of a penalty of Rs 5.5 lakh each.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe offences, which pertained to illegal entry and visa violations, are compoundable at the level of the FRRO.Special judge Prashant Sharma granted them default bail on grounds of parity with their American co-accused Matthew Aaron Van Dyke.While granting bail to Dyke on Sept 18, the judge had dismissed the NIA’s opposition, observing that even if the probe was far from over, “at this stage it cannot be concluded that applicant/ accused Matthew Aaron Vandyke is not entitled for default bail”.Default bail is provisioned in the UAPA if the probe agency doesn’t file charge sheet containing offences under the anti-terror law with 180 days of arresting the accused. Following this, the court had directed that the other six accused could also seek default bail.Earlier this month, the agency filed a charge sheet which did not mention provisions of the UAPA, 1967, which was invoked in the initial FIR.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorKoushiki SahaKoushiki Saha, a trainee journalist currently reporting for The Times of India, covers urban governance, infrastructure lapses, public grievances, and municipal policies with clarity and compassion. Still learning every day, she draws insights from fieldwork, lived experiences, and holding authorities accountable through persistent, people-focused reporting.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’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 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 Sharjah123Hot PicksIBPS PO Prelims Result 2026NSE IPOSpaceXGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysSchool holiday todaySamastipur girl molestationUPI transactionsMumbai-Pune ExpresswayCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingAsian Games Medal TallyRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0