On the eve of the Delhi Assembly elections, the Election Commission (EC) has issued a firm rebuttal to accusations of bias and undue influence, primarily leveled by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The Commission emphasized its dedication to neutrality and the rigorous adherence to legal protocols, despite claims of political pressure.

In a recent statement published on the social media platform X, the EC addressed what it described as “repeated pressure tactics” used by various political parties and candidates, including accusations of attempting to malign the Commission’s authority. The statement highlighted the EC’s commitment to restraint and its efforts to manage criticisms with “sagacity and stoicism.”

This response follows a series of pointed critiques from prominent AAP leaders, including Delhi Chief Minister Atishi and party chief Arvind Kejriwal. The criticism intensified after allegations surfaced regarding the family of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Ramesh Bidhuri violating the Model Code of Conduct in Delhi’s Kalkaji area, with Atishi accusing the EC of inaction.

Atishi’s posts on X detailed how she reported the misconduct to both the Delhi Police and the EC, only to find herself charged instead. Furthermore, Kejriwal has also been vocal, suggesting that the EC and Delhi Police are biased towards the BJP, alleging that they turn a blind eye to corrupt practices such as distributing liquor and money for votes.

In a particularly harsh critique, Kejriwal questioned the future prospects of the Chief Election Commissioner, Rajiv Kumar, insinuating potential post-retirement offers from the BJP that could compromise the electoral process.

The EC, in its defense, asserted that all complaints and issues raised ahead of the polls were thoroughly investigated by over 150,000 officials working within a robust legal framework to ensure fairness and transparency.

As Delhi’s voters prepare to cast their ballots for the 70 assembly seats, the EC’s assurances aim to reinforce trust in the electoral process amidst swirling allegations of misconduct and bias. The results of the election, which will determine if AAP secures a third consecutive term, are eagerly awaited.

With the Delhi Assembly elections just a day away, Chief Minister Atishi has been implicated in a legal matter concerning disobedience, filed at the Govindpuri police station. According to the charges, Atishi, representing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) from the Kalkaji constituency, was accused of breaching the election code of conduct as stipulated by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, specifically under Section 223.

Delhi Police detailed on the social platform X that Atishi, alongside approximately 50 to 70 people and 10 vehicles, congregated at Fateh Singh Marg. When instructed to clear the area in line with electoral guidelines, they allegedly did not comply.

The initiation of this case followed an incident where a supporter of Atishi reportedly assaulted a police officer who was videotaping the Chief Minister’s motorcade.

Responding vigorously to the charges, Atishi criticized the Election Commission and the police for what she perceives as selective enforcement of the rules, particularly highlighting that Ramesh Bidhuri’s family—her BJP opponent—were also violating the election guidelines without facing repercussions.

Echoing Atishi’s frustrations, Arvind Kejriwal, the national convener of AAP, accused the Delhi Police and the Election Commission of adopting a stance that seemed to support the BJP’s alleged misdemeanors, including distributing liquor and money. He claimed that those attempting to intervene are being wrongfully targeted.

Police sources suggested that Atishi was actively campaigning in the Govindpuri area even after the official canvassing period had concluded and reportedly engaged in a dispute with the executive magistrate in charge of the flying squad, a team tasked with overseeing and enforcing poll conduct regulations.

The Supreme Court recently expressed its dissatisfaction with the Assam government’s inaction in deporting individuals identified as foreigners, questioning whether the delay was due to waiting for an auspicious time. During a hearing, the bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, mandated the deportation of 63 detainees, previously declared as foreigners in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) update in Assam.

The state’s legal representatives contended that they lacked addresses of these individuals in their countries of origin, a claim that did not sit well with the court. Justice Oka accused the Assam government of withholding facts, while India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, intervening, acknowledged shortcomings and offered apologies, which he said came from discussions with top executive authorities.

However, the bench was critical of the Assam government’s documentation, pointing out the absence of specific dates for verification processes and labeling the provided affidavit as defective. Justice Bhuyan highlighted the logistical inconsistency, stating that once someone is declared a foreigner, the next steps towards their deportation should follow promptly, as indefinite detention raises serious human rights concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Oka dismissed the state’s excuse regarding the unknown addresses, suggesting a straightforward deportation to the capital cities of the respective countries. He further questioned why Assam had not approached the Ministry of External Affairs for assistance in the deportation process.

This firm stance by the Supreme Court underscores the urgency of resolving the status of foreigners detained in Assam, insisting on adherence to legal and ethical standards without undue delay.