The Election Commission has said that Aadhaar card, ration card or earlier voter ID card is not sufficient to include someone’s name in the voter list. The Commission has said this in the reply filed in the Supreme Court in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) case. In the last hearing, the court suggested recognition of these three documents for the identity of the voter during SIR. The next hearing of the case is to be held on July 28.

In the affidavit filed by Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar, it has been said that the voter list is being reviewed and corrected through SIR. At this time, the voter ID card that people have, it was released on the basis of the same voter list which is under the scope of review. If he is recognized while making a new list, then the whole exercise will become meaningless.
What did the Election Commission say in the affidavit regarding Aadhaar card?

The affidavit has said about the Aadhaar card that it is just an identity card, not a proof of citizenship. Therefore, no one can be given place in the voter list only due to Aadhaar card. The Commission has cited Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. This section clearly says that the Aadhaar card does not give anyone citizenship of India.
Ration cards become fake in large numbers: Election Commission

Regarding the ration card, the Election Commission has said that it is not a reliable document to have a name in the voter list. A large number of fake cards are made. In March this year, the Government of India had talked about canceling 5 crore fake ration cards.

The Commission has made it clear that it is not forbidden to submit these documents in voter revision. If other reliable documents are given with these documents, then they can be accepted. The local Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) can decide to accept or reject them on the basis of their satisfaction. They are still being seen as a proof of identity.

The Samajwadi Party reached the Supreme Court against the vacancy of its district office in Pilibhit, UP. The court said that while in power, it had cheated the government building with fraud and then kept the rules on hold. Now when it is being evacuated, all the rules are missing.

What is the matter?

In 2005, the residence of Executive Engineer of Pilibhit Nagar Palika Parishad was given to Samajwadi Party on a minor rent as the Samajwadi Party government in the state. The party made it a district office. On 12 November 2020, the Nagar Palika Parishad revoked the allocation against the rule. Despite this, the party did not give up possession. Now the action to vacate the place has been started.

What else did the Supreme Court say?

A bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, refusing the hearing, said that the party should speak in the civil court of Pilibhit. The lawyer presented for the Samajwadi Party argued that the party has paid full fare for the building. To this, the court said, ‘Have you ever heard that the fare of the government building between the city is 115 rupees? Do you want us to believe it? ‘ The court said that what has happened in this case, instead of allotment, it would be right to say ‘occupied by fraud’.

Permission petition against Allahabad High Court order

Explain that in June, the Supreme Court had rejected another special permission petition filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court on behalf of the Samajwadi Party, in which the party president of Pilibhit district was stopped from filing any writ petition further regarding the dispute of eviction of the party from the party office in Pilibhit. The court clarified that the Samajwadi Party can move the High Court.

Also read:- Real Estate Fraud: ED’s big action in 1100 crore builder-broad fraud, two promoters of this company arrested

Justice Yashwant Verma has reprimanded the petitioner who reached the Supreme Court seeking to register an FIR in the cash case. The petitioner repeatedly called Justice Yashwant Verma as ‘Verma’. Annoyed by this, Chief Justice BR Gavai said, ‘He is not your friend. Do not forget that he is still an honorable judge of the High Court. His name cannot be taken in this way.

Advocate Mathews Nedumpra had earlier filed a petition for an FIR against Justice Verma 2 times. For the first time, the Supreme Court said that the Chief Justice has formed an in -house committee of 3 judges for investigation. Then for the second time he said that the report of the committee has been sent to the President and the Prime Minister.

Request for early hearing from Chief Justice BR Gawai

Nedumpra, who reached the Supreme Court for the third time, requested Chief Justice BR Gavai to hear soon. Nedumpra said, ‘Verma himself has created such a situation that FIR is necessary.’ Chief Justice BR Gawai was enraged at this.

He said, ‘How are you addressing them? He is still Justice Verma. On this, Nedumpra said that in his eyes, Justice Verma is not worthy of such respect. The Chief Justice refused to put the case immediately and said, “Do not teach the court right and wrong.”

Petition filed in Supreme Court

Let us know that last week, Justice Yashwant Verma has approached the Supreme Court and filed a petition against the committee’s decision. In the petition, Justice Verma has said that the committee did not give him a proper opportunity to present his case. Worked on the basis of predetermined thinking and gave his conclusion. There was a need to investigate whose cash it was? But instead of conducting proper investigation, the committee asked him to prove that the cash is not their.