MK Stalin on SIR: Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) on Monday filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the Special Intensive Revision process.

The move comes after the Election Commission of India (ECI) last week issued orders for the next phase of SIR of voter lists in 12 states and union territories, which will cover a total of 51 crore voters.

Nomination work will start from November 4

The nomination process for this phase will begin from November 4 and the final voter list will be published on February 7, 2026, with January 1, 2026, as the base date. Assembly elections are to be held in the five states/union territories next year in April-May 2026. West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry are included in the list of 12 states where the SIR process will run in the next three months. However, Assam, which is one of the election states, is not included in this list.

CM M.K. Stalin accused ECI of conspiracy

On Monday, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin accused the Election Commission (ECI) of a conspiracy and said the SIR was a malicious attempt aimed at removing opposition voters.

Stalin said, “To stop this undemocratic step, we called an all-party meeting and passed a resolution condemning the SIR. The complete revision of the voter list by the Election Commission a few months before the elections is a deliberate strategy to remove legitimate voters.”

Big allegation made giving example of Bihar

CM Stalin alleged that a similar process was adopted in Bihar also, where lakhs of genuine voters were removed from the list. He said that the first opposition to this controversial process started from Tamil Nadu, after which Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and opposition leaders of Bihar also opposed it. Stalin said, “Even after the legal case was registered, the Election Commission did not give any satisfactory answer”.

AIADMK and BJP also targeted

Stalin met AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi K. He also made a scathing attack on Palaniswami and said that he was playing a double game and was afraid of the Election Commission because of his links with BJP. He further said that migrant laborers from Bihar have got respect and employment in Tamil Nadu, but the Prime Minister is “doing political drama for electoral gains in Bihar.”

The City Civil Court of Hyderabad, the capital of Telangana, rejected the petition of Prince Azmat Jah and Shekhar Jah, in which they wanted the case of Nawab Najaf Ali Khan to be dismissed. After this decision, the full hearing of the original case filed by Najaf Ali Khan in the year 2021 will continue.

This legal battle is regarding the division of the properties of late Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan. On one side of the dispute is Nawab Najaf Ali Khan, while on the other side are Prince Azmat Jah and his son Murad Jah.

What is Najaf Ali Khan’s claim?
Najaf Ali Khan claims that palaces like Chowmahalla and Falaknuma are family property and should be divided among all the heirs. Ajmat Jah and Murad Jah argue that the Nizam bequeathed all his property to ‘H.E.H. Donated to Nizam’s Trust, which now manages them.

Who was Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan
The East India Company had given the title of India’s first richest person to Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan of Hyderabad. 77-78 years ago, his net worth was estimated at $230 billion, whereas today in 2025, the wealth of the world’s richest person, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, is $393 billion. Jeff Bezos’s wealth is $240 billion. If calculated in today’s terms, Nizam’s wealth would have been many times more than Musk’s. His total wealth was estimated to be equal to 2 percent of America’s GDP.

The Nizams of Hyderabad were among the richest in the world at that time. The Nizam had about 4.5 crore kg of gold and more than 18 crore kg of diamonds and jewels. Not only this, he also had his own private airlines. The Nizam’s rule in Hyderabad continued for about 225 years (1724 to 1948). After India’s independence, when India refused to agree to merger, the government took action and merged Hyderabad into the country.

read this also

Kerala High Court quashes criminal case against teacher for caning students

On Monday, a sudden incident took place during a regular hearing in the Supreme Court. A man threw a shoe at India’s Chief Justice BR Gawai. Luckily, the shoe only went to his leg and the Chief Justice did not suffer any physical injury.

This incident put a negative shadow in the history of the Indian judiciary. Despite the incident, Chief Justice Gavai remained completely calm and said: “I don’t mind such incidents. You guys continue your arguments.”

Who is the accused lawyer?

The accused lawyer is Rakesh Kishore. The court staff caught them and handed them over to the police. Rakesh Kishore was screaming at the time of the incident. According to the police report, Rakesh Kishore is a registered member of the Supreme Court Bar Association and lives in Mayur Vihar area of ​​Delhi. He enrolled in the Delhi Bar Council in 2009. He also found membership cards of Supreme Court Bar Association, Shahdara Bar Association and Delhi Bar Council.

The reason for throwing a shoe

The incident took place in connection with the petition related to the restoration of the damaged Vishnu statue in the Khajuraho campus of Madhya Pradesh. On 16 September, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for reconstruction and re -installation of the seven -foot tall statue of Lord Vishnu at the Jawari temple of Khajuraho. The court called it a publicity interest petition.

What did Chief Justice Gawai say?

Chief Justice Gawai had said, “This is a complete propaganda interest petition. Go and ask God yourself to do something. If you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, pray and pay some attention.” Hinduist organizations had expressed displeasure over this comment and there was a widespread debate on social media.

Also read-

Talk on a phone call between Trump and Lula, will America-Brazilian relations improve? Know big things

In India, 18 thousand deaths occurred in 2022 on walking in the wrong direction on the road. Even if you follow the traffic rules, it can still be wrong. Because we have been taught to walk to left from childhood. But now this rule can change. The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition, sought a response from the government whether the place can be left on the right side in India or not.

So let’s understand in ABP Expluser what is the matter of right-left walking in the Supreme Court, are the rules going to change in India and in which direction people in countries around the world go …

Question 1- What is the case of left or right hand running in the Supreme Court?
answer- In 2019, a petition was filed by Jabalpur social activist Gyan Prakash. It was about safety and production of passengers on national highways. The petition demanded the practice of running the left side on the road as wrong and implementing the rule of changing it and running the right side like abroad. The petition stated …

• Pedestrians in India traditionally run on the left side, which is unsafe in the Left Hand Traffic ie LHT system. This increases the risk of collision from vehicles coming from behind.
• Gyan Prakash, citing his book ‘Traffic Education’, said that pedestrians should run the right side, as is done abroad.
  In 2022, out of 50 thousand road accidents, 18 thousand i.e. 36% of deaths occurred.
• Based on the 2017 Road Accidents in India report, walking on the left side does not see the vehicle coming from behind, due to which more than 30% of pedestrian accidents occur. Walking on the right side can see the passenger traffic and avoid danger.
• The petition demanded that the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 should be amended and make rights mandatory for pedestrians. Also run awareness campaigns in schools and public places.

Question 2- What did the Supreme Court say while hearing this petition?
answer- Supreme Court Judge Abhay S. The bench of Oka asked the Central Government and the National Highway Authority of India i.e. NHAI whether in India, like abroad, pedestrians can be made a rule to walk on the right of the road. The court directed both sides to give detailed answers with all the facts and data by 10 November.

The Supreme Court also reminded that it had instructed to remove traffic control and road encroachment on 21 May 2025, but it did not work. The court has asked whether a ‘ride walking system’ can be implemented in a densely populated country like India.

Question 3- So is it better and safe to walk right side?
answer- Yes. For pedestrians, walking by facing the right side of the road, is considered to be more secure in India’s left hand traffic …

• Trains run in India, ie on the left part of the road. Walking on the right side can see the trains coming to the pedestrian. This makes it easier to guess and rescue the danger. Walking on the left side does not show vehicles coming from behind, which increases the risk of collision.
• World Health Organization ie WHO and International Security Guidelines say that the pedestrians should always face traffic. In Australia, it is written on signboards, ‘Walk facing traffic i.e. traffic.’
• According to experts, India has only 30% pavement and about 95% people run on the left side. Time and education is needed to change it. For this, the right side in the traffic law will have to make it mandatory instead of suggestions. Right side walking is much better, but only when there is pavement, awareness and legal strictness. It will remain incomplete without infrastructure.

Question 4- Which countries around the world follow the right side and left side?
answer- There are two types of traffic systems in countries around the world. A left hand traffic means LHT and Right Hand Traffic i.e. RHT.

1. Left hand traffic

In this, vehicles walk on the left side of the road. The driver’s seat is mostly on the right side. This rule applies in many countries of the world.

• Asia: India, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Singapore, Hong Kong and Macau.
• Africa: South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia, Botswana and Swaziland.
• Oshinia: Australia, New Zealand, Fiji Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands.
• Europe: United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man.
• Caribbean: Jamaica, Bahamas, Barbados, Antigua and Babuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincents.
• Other: Mauriti, Seychelles, Brunei and Timot-Last.

2. Right Hand Traffic
In this, the vehicles run on the right side of the road and the driver’s seat is on the left side. This rule is applicable in many countries of the world …

• North America: United States of America, Canada and Mexico.
• Europe: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Russia, Poland and Portugal.
• Asia: China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turks, Vietnam, Philippines, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia.
• South America: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Columbia and Venezuela.
• Africa: Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Ethiopia, Ghana and Egypt.
• Other: Countries like Jordan and Iraq, Mongolia and Taiwan of Middle East.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has summoned the BJP worker from Karnataka, who has filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court claiming Rahul Gandhi being a British citizen. Official sources gave this information on Saturday (September 6, 2025).

Identification of BJP worker S. Vignesh is in the form of Shishir. He has been asked to appear before the Central Investigation Agency on 9 September. ED sources said that Shishir has been asked to appear with all the evidence and documents related to the case under the provisions of the Currency Management Act (FEMA). He informed that these allegations are being investigated.

Congress did not react
Under FEMA, ED examines complaints related to violations of foreign exchange laws regarding individuals and companies. When a response was sought from the Congress party on the matter, he refused to comment.

In the PIL filed in the Allahabad High Court, Shishir claimed that he has some documents and e-mails of the British government, which proves that the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Gandhi is a UK citizen and is disqualified to contest elections in India for this reason. On August 30, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court ordered the Central Government to provide 24 -hour security to Shishir.

This case is considering- Allahabad High Court

Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice B.K. R. Singh’s bench passed this order on a writ petition filed by the BJP worker. In its interim order, the bench said, “We are satisfied at first sight that the matter is considering because the petitioner has filed a case against a highly influential person and is constantly facing threats and in compliance with the notice, he has to appear before the investigating officer at Kotwali police station in Rae Bareli district.”

Government of India wrote a letter to the UK government

Shishir had told the High Court that the CBI was investigating on the basis of his complaint made in June 2024. He also claimed that he has appeared before the agency in Delhi several times and has also given evidence related to Rahul Gandhi’s alleged British citizenship. The High Court has fixed the next hearing of the case for October 9.

During the last hearing of the case, the Central Government had told the court that the Government of India has written a letter to the UK government to provide details related to British citizenship of Rahul Gandhi.

Also read

ED’s major action on DMFT scam in Chhattisgarh, 4 crore cash and 10 kg silver seized

There was a big turn in an important case in Madhya Pradesh High Court when Justice Vishal Mishra of Jalpur Bench separated himself from the hearing. This case is related to the complaint of illegal mining on a large scale. The judge said that BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak tried to contact the phone in this case, which could have affected judicial fairness. Therefore, he decided to separate himself from further hearing.

The controversy is related to the writ petition titled “Ashutosh Dixit vs. Economic Offenses Branch (EOW) and other”. Petitioner Ashutosh Dixit had lodged a complaint with the Economic Offenses Branch in Bhopal regarding illegal mining. They allege that there has been a large -scale mining scam in the state, but the investigating agency did not complete the investigation within the stipulated time. For this reason, he approached the High Court and demanded judicial intervention in the case.

What is the whole matter?

It is alleged that the family companies of BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak bought land worth about Rs 1000 crore from Bhopal, Jabalpur and Katni for only Rs 90 crore. Due to this deal, investors suffered heavy economic losses. After the case was exposed, the opposition called it a failure of the government and demanded a CBI inquiry.

Apart from this, these companies were also accused of illegal mining, due to which a fine of Rs 520 crore was imposed. In the state assembly, the government admitted that the recovery action is being taken. This case not only highlights economic irregularities but is also causing a stir in political corridors.

Sanjay Pathak contacted Justice Vishal Mishra with phone

BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak was not a party in this matter. He filed an application for intervention in the court. He said that he too should be given an opportunity to speak in this matter, but during the hearing on 1 September, Justice Mishra wrote in the order that Pathak tried to personally talk to him on the phone, which is against the judicial code of conduct.

Sanjay Pathak’s case will go to Chief Justice

Justice Vishal Mishra made it clear in his order that Sanjay Pathak has tried to call me to discuss this particular case, so I am not willing to hear this writ petition. Along with this, he directed to send the case to the Chief Justice so that it can be listed before another bench.

The case will be heard before the new bench

According to the information, now this matter will be heard before the new bench. Senior Advocate SR on behalf of the petitioner Tamarkar and advocate Ankit Chopra presented the arguments, while EOW’s side was placed by advocate Madhur Shukla. Advocate Anshuman Singh was present on behalf of MLA Sanjay Pathak.

Bihar Voter List Revision: Opposition parties have described the amendment in the voter list of the Election Commission in Bihar as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitions filed on their behalf will be heard in the Supreme Court on Thursday (July 10, 2025). Those who filed the petition against the Election Commission include the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and some other political parties.

Assembly elections are going to be held in Bihar in October-November. General amendments have been made in the voter list in India earlier also. However, Mahua Moitra and others believe that this SIR, as notified, is being done for the first time in the country, where all voters are being asked to prove their eligibility again.

What is special intensive revision (SIR)?
The Election Commission (EC) announced a special intensive revision (SIR) of voter lists on 24 June. Its declared objective is to include all eligible voters and remove all ineligible voters. The Commission has justified this process, quoting rapid urbanization and migration, recently 18 years old or not able to register earlier, citing low reporting of people and low reporting of deaths. It has also been asked to become voters of foreign illegal migrants, which are necessary to be removed.

What is the allegation of opposition parties?
Opposition parties have alleged that a large number of eligible people may be out of the list due to lack of some documents from this matter. The Election Commission aims to draft the voter list by August 1, after which objections and investigations will be done. The Election Commission has claimed that more than 57 percent of the current 7.9 percent of the voters have submitted new calculation forms, which will now be investigated.

Also read:

What is Starlink Jane-1? How you will get high speed internet, Government of India has approved

Thailand PM Suspended: There has been a tremendous upheaval in Thailand politics. The constitutional court of the country has suspended Prime Minister Partagarn Shinavatra from his post. The decision came after a diplomatic dispute with Cambodia and a leaked telephone call, which has created heavy political tension within the Thailand’s Parliament and the military establishment. The court pronounced this decision with a majority of 7-2, saying that the Prime Minister is suspended from his works from July 1, until the final decision in the matter comes.

Cambodia dispute and leak call became reason
The entire controversy began in May 2025 after a confrontation on the border of Thailand and Cambodia, killing a Cambodian soldier. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Partagatarn made a telephone call to Cambodian leader and former Prime Minister Hun Sen. The call was recently leaked, in which he addressed Hun Sen as “Uncle” and called a senior commander of the Thai army “anti”. This statement created a sharp response within the country, especially between the army and orthodox forces.

Aadhaar became a petition of pro -army MPs
After the leak call surfaced, the MPs of Thai Parliament filed a petition against the Prime Minister in the constitutional court who are considered close to the army. He alleged that the Prime Minister indicated to bow down to Cambodia on this sensitive issue and publicly humiliated the Thai army. The petition said that this behavior does not meet the constitutional test of the “moral dignity” of the ministerial post, which has hurt the national security, foreign policy and military prestige of the country.

Prime Minister’s response
Although the Prime Minister Partagarn Shinavatra has not yet made any direct public statement in the matter, his spokesperson made it clear in the press briefing that the aim of the Prime Minister was only to maintain peace in the area and avoid conflict. The spokesman said that the Prime Minister is very hurt by the leak of the phone call and promoting it in the wrong context. He also said that the Prime Minister respects the process of the court and will cooperate fully in the investigation.

Shinavatra family again in controversies
The Prime Minister Partagarnarn, is the daughter of former Prime Minister Thaxin Shinavatra, who was removed from power in 2006 through a military coup. Since then, his family has been continuously centers of controversies and power struggle in Thai politics. Political analysts believe that this suspension of the Prime Minister is not just a constitutional or legal process, but an attempt to weaken the democratically elected government by the army and conservative powers. The Pitagartan government has been facing opposition to the army -backed establishment since the beginning, and now the matter has become another challenge for Thailand’s democratic stability.