English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

EC suggests 5 amendments to Constitution for simultaneous polls

Published

on

EC suggests 5 amendments to Constitution for simultaneous polls

Chief Election Commissioner OP Rawat, Photo Credit: Agencies

Election Commission backs proposal for simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly polls but says 5 Articles under the Constitution will have to be amended first

Close on the heels of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s concerted campaign for simultaneous polls to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, the Election Commission has written to the Union Law Ministry stating that while it backed the idea, at least five Articles under the Constitution will have to first be amended to make this major reform possible.

According to a report in the Times of India, the Election Commission has sent a detailed note to the Union Law Ministry on the legislative requirements that need to be met before the Modi government can actually go ahead with the idea of holding simultaneous elections. The details from the Election Commission were sought in response to a private member’s bill in Rajya Sabha.

The required amendments to the Constitution that the EC has pointed out pertain to five Articles which largely govern the duration and dissolution of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

An internal note of prepared on the issue by the law ministry after factoring in the suggestions of the Election Commission was reportedly accessed by the TOI. The TOI report says: “…EC said terms of state legislatures could be extended, or curtailed, to coincide with LS polls. Article 83, dealing with duration of Houses of Parliament may need amendment. Other Articles that may need amendment include Article 85, regarding dissolution of the Lok Sabha by the President; and Article 172, relating to duration of state legislatures, Article 174 relating to dissolution of state assemblies; and Article 356”.

Here’s what the Articles pointed out by the EC for relevant amendments state:

Article 83

“The House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the House: Provided that the said period may, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, be extended by Parliament by law for a period not exceeding one year as a time and not extending in any case beyond a period of six months after s the Proclamation has ceased to operate.”

(Relevant part regarding the Lok Sabha; the Article also talks about the Rajya Sabha but the amendment need not be made to the part concerning the Upper House as its term is not affected by the dissolution of the Lok Sabha or state assembly)

Article 85

Sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution

(1) The President shall form time to time summon each House of Parliament to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session

(2) The President may from time to time

(a) prorogue the Houses or either House;

(b) dissolve the House of the People

Article 172

Duration of State Legislatures

“(1) Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the Assembly: Provided that the said period may, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, be extended by Parliament by law for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not extending in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate.”

Article 174

Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution

“(1) The Governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session

(2) The Governor may from time to time

(a) Prorogue the House or either House;

(b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly.”

Article 356 – Outlines rules for declaration of President’s Rule in States

The TOI report also mentions that, despite the push for simultaneous polls by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and more recently also by President Ram Nath Kovind, the Election Commission has advised caution against implementing this ambitious plan without extensive discussions with all stakeholders. The report says that the Election Commission has told the Law Ministry: “Having regard to the federal structure of our system of governance, it is imperative that consensus of all state governments is obtained” on the issue of holding simultaneous polls to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

The poll panel has further noted: “In order to avoid premature dissolution, it may be provided that any ‘no-confidence motion’ moved against the government in office should also necessarily include a further ‘confidence motion’ in favour of a government to be headed by a named individual as the future PM and voting should take place for two motions together.”

It may be recalled that before his elevation as the Chief Election Commissioner, OP Rawat had indicated that the poll panel was in favour of the Prime Minister’s idea of conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

India News

Rahul Gandhi faces FIR order as Allahabad High Court acts on dual citizenship plea

High Court allows plea in Rahul Gandhi citizenship case, paving the way for further legal process.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has allowed a petition seeking legal action in connection with allegations related to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status, marking a fresh development in the case.

The petition was filed by a political worker, who had approached the court seeking directions for registration of a case over claims that Gandhi may have held foreign citizenship. The High Court, while hearing the matter, passed directions for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The development comes after a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow had earlier declined to order registration of an FIR, reportedly observing that it lacked jurisdiction in matters concerning citizenship.

Background

The case is linked to allegations that Rahul Gandhi may have held British citizenship. Under Indian law, dual citizenship is not permitted. However, these claims remain part of the petitioner’s submissions and have not been established by any court.

During earlier hearings, the High Court had sought records and considered material presented by the parties involved.

What happens next

With the High Court allowing the plea, the matter is expected to proceed as per due legal process. This may involve examination by the appropriate authority and further judicial review at subsequent stages.

The case carries both legal and political significance given Rahul Gandhi’s role as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Continue Reading

India News

Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses relief in passport row case

Congress leader Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses interim relief and directs him to seek bail from Guwahati High Court.

Published

on

Pawan Khera

Congress leader Pawan Khera suffered another legal setback on Friday after the Supreme Court of India declined to extend protection in a case linked to his remarks about Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife.

A bench of the apex court refused to interfere with an earlier order that had stayed the transit anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court. This decision leaves the Congress leader open to possible arrest by Assam Police in connection with the case.

During the hearing, Khera’s counsel sought interim protection, but the court declined the request and advised him to approach the appropriate court in Assam for relief. The bench clarified that the Guwahati High Court should decide any bail plea independently and on its merits.

“Am I a terrorist?” remark during hearing

While seeking protection, Khera’s legal team expressed concern over the urgency of the situation. In court, his counsel remarked, “Am I a terrorist?” highlighting the plea for temporary relief until a fresh bail application could be filed.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns over the submission of incorrect documents during the proceedings, adding another layer to the legal complications faced by the Congress leader.

Case linked to remarks on CM’s wife

The case stems from a press conference held earlier this month, where Khera made allegations regarding the citizenship status and financial assets of the Assam Chief Minister’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

He had claimed that she possessed multiple passports and owned undisclosed overseas properties. These allegations were strongly denied by the Chief Minister’s family, who termed them fabricated and misleading.

Legal battle intensifies

Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera temporary transit anticipatory bail, allowing him time to seek relief from a competent court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order following a challenge by Assam authorities, escalating the legal battle.

With the latest ruling, Khera is now expected to move the Guwahati High Court for anticipatory bail as the case continues to unfold.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress suspends 5 Haryana MLAs over cross-voting in Rajya Sabha polls

Congress suspends five Haryana MLAs for cross-voting in Rajya Sabha elections, citing serious indiscipline and anti-party activities.

Published

on

The Congress has suspended five of its MLAs in Haryana for cross-voting during the recent Rajya Sabha elections, taking disciplinary action over what it described as “anti-party activities”.

The move came after the state unit reviewed the conduct of certain legislators during the polls, where some were found to have voted against the party’s authorised candidate.

Five MLAs suspended after disciplinary process

According to party sources, the MLAs were issued show-cause notices seeking an explanation for their actions. After reviewing their responses, the Congress disciplinary committee recommended suspension.

The decision was approved by the party leadership, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, and has been implemented with immediate effect.

Party calls it ‘grave indiscipline’

Haryana Congress chief Udai Bhan said the action was necessary to uphold party discipline, stressing that defying the official party line during elections weakens organisational unity.

He said the party takes such violations seriously and will continue to act against any form of indiscipline.

Leadership backs strict action

Senior Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda supported the decision, saying it was taken after due consideration.

He noted that while Rajya Sabha elections are conducted through an open ballot system, allowing legislators some flexibility, the party retains the authority to initiate internal disciplinary action in cases of deviation.

Background

The action follows cross-voting reported during the recent Rajya Sabha elections in Haryana, which led to internal concerns within the party. The development has highlighted organisational challenges and prompted the leadership to take corrective steps to reinforce discipline.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com