The opinion of independent experts should be also be taken into consideration by the apex court before it assesses the actual impact of this law on our forest cover, the letter states.

The text of the open letter may be read here:

Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India on the Conflict of Interest of the Central  Empowered Committee

Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India,

We are a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments. We owe no allegiance to any political party; our only loyalty is to the Constitution of India.

We have expressed our anguish several times in the past regarding the steady reduction of India’s forest cover, due to changes in certain laws and policies of the government, as well as their actions. What is causing us great concern now is a matter of conflict of interest, and transgression of the principles of natural justice, which promises to take the diminution of India’s forests even further down the road.

A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted in the year 2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) on the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. It was set up for the purposes of monitoring and ensuring compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on matters of forests and wildlife and to provide technical advice on the subject to the Supreme Court. It consisted of three former officers of the MOEF, and two non-government persons, the first an expert on forests and wildlife and the other an advocate of the Supreme Court who was also an environmentalist. In short, the Committee had not only expert members from the government, but also independent members who had not served in high positions in the government of India, nor had been involved in decisions of forest policy, thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest.

In 2023, since Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) seemingly had complete autonomy in choosing the members of the CEC, it nominated in all the four posts of members, four former government officers, three of whom are retired Indian Forest Service officers and one, a retired scientist, who had also worked for many years until his retirement in the MoEFCC. There are no independent experts on the Committee.

Two of the members of the CEC have held the topmost forest and wildlife posts under the government of India, that of Director General and Special Secretary and have retired recently.

A CEC which is comprised of officers who had held the highest positions in the MoEFCC, and were closely involved in policy making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government.

In 2023 a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a group of individuals challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA), 2023, as, according to them, the Act would hasten the decline of forests in India, already greatly reduced since a decade or two earlier. In hearings in this case, so far, the Supreme Court has given four landmark orders, upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996 and directing that such forests be identified and geo- referenced as per the SC orders of 1996 and 2011 (Lafarge case). The case is pending for a final hearing and decision in the Supreme Court.

However, we fear that the outcome of this case, as well as those of others filed against the FCAA 2023, may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC, and the likelihood that the Supreme Court may give weight to the advice of the CEC before taking a final decision in the matter.

We would like to point out that the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 was prepared and defended before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) by a CEC member then at the helm in the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change. The Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) 2023 which is being challenged in the Supreme Court, was also notified at that time, as were the rules under the Act and the consolidated guidelines (notified on November 29, 2023 and December 12, 2023.

Similarly, several memoranda that permitted using degraded, notified forests and unclassed/ revenue forests for compensatory afforestation in exchange for diversion of forest land were issued during the tenure of some of the CEC members while they held top positions in the MoEFCC. Such orders are against the Godavarman judgement of 1996, but they were issued nevertheless. Any advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, cannot but be in line with the previous positions held by these officials in the government. The advice of the CEC in any case which challenges the FCAA 2023 (with which they were closely associated while in the government), will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed, and will thus be a clear conflict of interest.

An indication of this is already evident in the recent SC order on ‘zudpi’ forests (scrub forests) of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court’s order of May 5, 2025 relied heavily on the CEC’s advice which recommended the untrammelled use of such forests for ‘compensatory afforestation’ considering ’zudpi’ forests as ecologically inferior forests as they cannot support thick stands of forest trees. Actually, ‘zudpi

forests are scrub forests/grasslands rich in wildlife specifically adapted to such vegetation. ‘Zudpi’ forests support important, endemic and endangered species such as the Indian grey wolf, Great Indian bustard, lesser Florican, Blackbuck, Indian fox etc., besides serving as corridors for tigers, leopards, bears and other wildlife, and helping mitigate human-wildlife conflict in an area severely affected by the same. Diverting of ‘zudpi’ forests for non -forestry purposes is also violative of the Supreme Court’s Godavarman order of 1996 as well as the more recent orders of the Court dated February 3, 2025 and March 3, 2025 in the case against the FCAA 2023, which is still under litigation. It is gratifying to note that the Honourable Supreme Court did not accept the CEC recommendations in toto.

We would like to recommend to the Honourable Court that in order to give fair and unbiased advice, a CEC needs to be composed not just of experts who are retired officials of the government but of renowned experts from outside as well, of which there are many in the country. As the Maharashtra zudpi forest case judgement clearly reveals, a CEC which is composed of only retired government officials merely reiterates the position of the government in its advice to the Supreme Court, a clear conflict of interest.

We request the CJI to ensure that such a CEC is not allowed to advise the Honourable Court in the FCAA 2023 cases before it, or be part of other such important cases in the interest of the country’s forests, wildlife and ecological security.

Signatories:

The post Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per guidelines issued by the Press Council of India’s election reporting (1996) and further guidelines issued on July 30, 2010 to be followed during election. Further added that, no political party or candidate or any other organization or person shall publish any advertisement in the print media on poll day and one day prior to poll day (silent period).

Even BJP published advertisements on dated May 04, 2024, May 05, 2024, May 10, 2024 and dated May 12, 2024 and again in June 04, 2024 during the silence period. These are only few in on record but BJP in each round of polling in every phase repeated the misconduct through social media and print ads.

This is not first time when ruling party is accused of violating ECI and MCC rules.

BJP’s silence period violation on pre poll and poll day:

On May 20, in Maharashtra, BJP published advertisements in the front page of the leading newspapers asking people to vote in the favor BJP-Shiv Sena Mahayuti alliance. The front page of newspapers advertised with BJP’s infamous slogan “Phir Ek Baar, Modi Sarkar” and “Modi ki Guarantee” etc. These ads were published in the Marathi language also.

The Additional CEO, Maharashtra State Election Commission while speaking to the Sabrang India, said “there is no rules for pre-permission of ECI for print advertisements”. But on the other hand, On May 7, 2023, ECI issued advisory to editors of all Karnataka local dailies and hold them responsible for advertisements during the silence period.

Even ECI cited provisions contained in Part (A) Para (2) (xii) of the Press Council’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct that provides “An editor shall be responsible for all matters, including advertisements published in the newspaper. If responsibility is disclaimed, this shall be explicitly stated beforehand.

This shows the biased and partial approaches of Election Commission, to curb the advertisements during silence period is not about power but about will.

The ads of BJP on poll day in Mumbai newspapers can be read here:

ECI advisory on March 1, 2024:

The Election Commission of India issued advisory in March, 2024 states that Political advertisements especially sky bus advertisements masquerading as news headlines to mislead readers shall not be published in newspapers. There should be explicit restrictions on advertisements predicting the victory of a particular party and any form of speculative content related to election outcomes shall be avoided. Attention is also drawn to the Part (A) para2 (xii) of Press Council’s Norms of Journalist conduct which provides that “An editor shall be responsible for all rnatters, including advertisements published in the newspaper. If responsibility is disclaimed, this shall be explicitly stated beforehand.”

On March 1, 2024 ECI also issued advisory to the President, General Secretory and Chairperson of the All National and State recognised political parties on plummeting level of public discourse during campaigning and expected decorum by political parties and candidates in general, and star campaigners.

ECI specifically instructed political parties that “unverified and misleading advertisements are not to be given in the media” and “advertisements masquerading as news items are not to be given”

The advisory of ECI dated March 1, 2024 can be read here:

ECI direction to CEC of States and UT on Media Coverage on April 2, 2024:

In April 2024, the Election Commission of India was directed to the chief electoral officer of all states and union territories that no political party or candidate or any other organisation or person should publish any advertisement in the print media on poll day and one day prior to poll day, unless the contents of political advertisements are Pre-certified by ECI from the MCMC Committee at the State/District level, as the case may be. The applicants shall have to apply to MCMC not later than 2 days prior to the proposed date of publication of such advertisements.

The ECI direction on April 2, 2024 can be read here:

The 48-hours silent period and duty of press:

The silence period is a zone of prohibited activities for pre poll or till the poll. This means campaigning is banned and no fresh election advertisements shall be published or publicly displayed during the silence period.

As per guidelines issued by the Press Council of India’s Election Reporting (1996) and further guidelines issued on July 30, 2010, media should refrain from publishing any advertisements for any political party and candidates and from publishing any unverified allegation against any candidate of political party, either directly of impliedly.

The Calcutta High Court in its decision on May 20, 2024 directed that in this period no political party or candidate or any other organization or person shall publish any advertisement in the print media on poll day and one day prior to poll day.

Press Council of India’s Election Reporting (1996) can be read here:

Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:

Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 prohibits displaying any election matter by means, inter alia, of television, cinematograph or similar apparatus, in any polling area during the period of forty-eight hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of the poll for any election in the polling area.

BJP’s Election Handbook 2024 but just for others?

It’s surprising that BJP itself released an Election Handbook 2024 stating that during the last 48-hour pre-election silence, all campaign activities halt. No appeal to voters can be issued from official handles of party or candidates. No public meetings, entertainment events, or influencing content are permitted. Only approved print ads are allowed on and before the polling day.

Despite the forgoing advisories and guidelines on silence period and conduct of media, ECI failed to take action against the gross violations by the ruling Bharatiya Janta Party.

BJP repeatedly violated the silence period during every phase of polling

The BJP Handbook can be read here:

Related:

Calcutta High Court slams ECI for inaction, restrains BJP from publishing ads in any form of media

Udhav Thackeray: Officials deliberately delayed voters

Amethi: Locals claim police beat up Muslims at polling booths

The post How BJP is accused of violating 48 Hours-Silence Period even on Poll Day? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When media reports appeared on April 1 that electronic voting machines had spewed out slips showing just the symbol of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the lotus, during a demonstration by election officials in Madhya Pradesh, rival political parties were quick to latch on to them.

In March, in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh, Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati had alleged that the voting machines used in Assembly polls held in the state in February-March had been rigged by the BJP. Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party had made similar allegations about machines used in the Punjab polls conducted simultaneously.

So when reports said the electronic voting machines used in Uttar Pradesh had travelled to Madhya Pradesh for bypolls in Ater constituency in Bhind district and Bandhavgarh constituency in Umaria district that are scheduled for Sunday, and a paper audit trail had dispensed only slips with the BJP symbol, they caused much alarm. The incident also led to the suspension of 19 officials, including a district collector and a superintendent of police.

A committee set up by the Election Commission has found that there was no truth in the allegations.

Scroll.in travelled to Bhind to investigate the allegations and speak to journalists who were the first to report the story and officials who were present at the demonstration on March 31. An examination of the reports that appeared in newspapers and on TV channels suggests that misreporting by one newspaper seems to have made it all the way to the national media.

What happened on March 31

On the afternoon of March 31, the Madhya Pradesh chief electoral officer, Saleena Singh, held a media briefing at a hall in the zila parishad building in Bhind town to discuss election preparedness in Ater constituency. Among those present were top officials of the state election commission, former District Collector Ilayaraja T, Superintendent of Police Anil Singh Kushwah, a group of mediapersons and a senior zila parishad officer, among a few others. During the briefing, Singh talked about the voter-verifiable paper audit trail machine and how it works in conjunction with the electronic voting machine. She went on to give an impromptu demonstration of how the audit trail works.

A VVPAT machine records each vote on paper and allows the voter to verify the paper record while casting the vote electronically. A slip with the chosen party symbol appears on a display screen for seven seconds and then automatically drops inside the machine.

As Singh pressed a button, the lotus symbol with the name of Satyadev Pachauri – the winning BJP candidate from Govind Nagar constituency in Kanpur during the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, whose results were declared on March 11 – appeared on the display screen of the VVPAT machine. On seeing the lotus symbol, some reporters suggested in jest that the machine was biased towards the BJP. Singh responded to the comments. She laughed and warned them against reporting on such lines, saying she would take them to the police station if they did.

Some reporters took offence at the remark, even as Singh and her team of election officials went on to press at least two other buttons.

Till here, all the versions in the press reports match. The divergence is over what happened next.

A widely circulated video of the incident shows Singh’s exchange of remarks with the journalists while she tested the electronic voting machine but it does not show the results on the VVPAT machine.

What local papers reported

Three major Hindi newspapers have offices in Bhind – Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar and Nayi Duniya – and all three had reporters present at the briefing. There is a stringer who contributes to two major news agencies but he was not at the event. A stringer for Hindi news channel Aaj Tak was also present, among a few others.

Patrika headline on April 1: “Demo mein pehli parchi nikli Bhajpa ki, Congress ne kaha ballot paper se ho chunao” (BJP slip first to come out during demo, Congress asks for polls to be conducted with ballot paper)

The front-page report said the first slip that emerged from the VVPAT machine during the demonstration displayed the BJP symbol, and after some mediapersons raised questions, Singh threatened them. It went on to quote Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Govind Singh suggesting that the electronic voting machines were tampered with and asking for voting through ballot paper. The report did not say what results had emerged on the VVPAT machine after the buttons on the electronic voting machine were pressed twice more.

The report in Patrika on April 1 says the first slip to come out was that of the BJP with its lotus symbol.

However, the paper carried a second article next to the main report – headlined “Loktantra ki hatya ka prayas: Govind Singh” (Attempt to murder democracy: Govind Singh) – which had Congress leader Govind Singh’s take on the controversy. And in the continuation of that second story on an inside page, the reporter quoted the Congress leader as saying that BJP slips had come out twice when button number four of the electronic voting machine was pressed.

The continuation of the second report on Patrika.

When contacted, the chief of Patrika’s reporting team in Bhind, Ramanand Soni, said, “Lotus slip [symbol of the BJP] did not appear twice and we have reported the facts correctly.” The reporter, Subhash Tripathi, too stood by his story.

Nai Duniya headline on April 1: “Mukkhya Nirvachan Padashikari hass kar boli – press mein dia toh thane mein baithaenge” (Chief electoral officer jokingly said if you put it in the press, I will take you to the police station).

According to the report, the slips from the VVPAT machine emerged in this sequence: the first one showed the BJP’s lotus symbol, the second showed the Rashtriya Lok Dal’s hand pump, and the third showed the Congress’ hand. The report said the election officer asked the reporters not to publish anything about the VVPAT slips. Speaking to Scroll.in, the reporter, Abbas Ahmed, vouched for the accuracy of his report.

A senior officer of the district collectorate, who did not wish to be identified, and the chief executive officer of the zila parishad in Bhind, both present for the demonstration, also narrated the same sequence of slips.

The Nai Duniya report on April 1, whose headline focused on the exchange of words between the chief electoral officer and reporters.

Dainik Bhaskar headline on April 1: “EVM ka do baar button dabaya toh print huwa kamal ka chinh” (Pressed twice, EVM buttons produced slip with the lotus symbol)
The report said the BJP slip appeared twice even though the election officers pressed two different buttons.

When asked about the difference between his account and the reports published in other newspapers, the Dainik Bhaskar reporter, Lajpat Agarwal, initially said he did not see anything clearly after the first two buttons pressed by the Chief Electoral Officer but he saw the election officials pressing four buttons in total.

“The symbol of the flower [Lotus] had appeared but whether she had pressed the same button corresponding to the Lotus, there is no clarity on that. But a lotus slip had emerged,” he said. He still did not clarify at what point he saw two lotus slips emerging on the VVPAT machine.

He then went on to say how Saleena Singh’s remarks had offended reporters. When pointed to the Nai Duniya report that said the slips had appeared in a particular sequence, he said that account was correct. Asked why then he had reported that there were two slips with the BJP symbol, he turned defensive and claimed he had seen two slips displaying the lotus symbol lying near the VVPAT machine.

The last claim is questionable. As far as the functioning of the VVPAT machine is concerned, the paper slips drop only in a container inside the machine.

Ravindra Jharkhariya, news editor of Dainik Bhaskar’s Gwalior office, to which the team in Bhind reports, claimed his was the only paper to have published the facts correctly. He refused to comment on the sequence of slips reported in other publications.

“If there was no problem in the VVPAT machine and BJP slip had not appeared twice, why did Ms Singh threaten the media?” he asked, adding, “The Election Commission is now trying to suppress the issue through its report [ruling out tampering].”

The Dainik Bhaskar reported that two slips of the BJP symbol were produced during the demonstration in Bhind.

Report of Election Commission

On Friday, the Election Commission published its report on the incident in which it clearly stated that four buttons were pressed on the electronic voting machine and four separate slips were produced in the VVPAT machine. It clarified the sequence as – hand pump (Rashtriya Lok Dal), lotus (BJP), hand pump (Rashtriya Lok Dal) and hand (Congress). No news reporter contacted by us, however, happened to have noticed the first hand pump symbol.

The national media

It took a day for the story to make it to national newspapers. On April 2, the Indian Express published a report with the headline “Madhya Pradesh EVM trial reignites ‘tampering’ row, EC calls for report”.

Since it did not have a reporter in Bhind, the newspaper relied on the reports that had appeared in the local papers. It began by saying: “Following reports that a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail [VVPAT] machine used during a trial in Madhya Pradesh only dispensed slips with the BJP’s poll symbol…” But then, it also went on to reflect the confusion over what had happened in Bhind.

“There were varying reports of what transpired during the trial,” it said. “Some reports said the VVPAT machine dispensed slips with the BJP’s lotus symbol twice, although different buttons were pressed on the EVM. Another version, however, said different symbols were printed.”

The Times of India, however, dispensed with caution and termed the electronic voting machines “faulty”. In a report published on April 3, it said, “The EVM that triggered nationwide controversy after reeling out BJP voter slips during a dummy test in Bhind was routed here from Kanpur after being used in the UP assembly poll, an Election Commission team said on Sunday after testing it.”

While reporting that the VVPAT machines dispensed slips showing only the BJP symbol, NDTV attributed it to local media reports.

A report on Aaj Tak said: “EVM fails trial test in Madhya Pradesh’s Bhind. As soon as a button on an EVM was pressed, the BJP candidate’s slip appeared on the VVPAT. Election Commission has sought a report on the matter.” The Aaj Tak stringer, Sarvesh Purohit, told Scroll.in that the BJP symbol did not appear twice, but he refused to say what he had communicated to his office.

A story on ABP News, however, claimed the VVPAT machine had produced two BJP slips. The reporter in the piece-to-camera is Brijesh Rajput, a Bhopal-based correspondent. Reporters present at the trial said Rajput was not at the venue on March 31.

When contacted, Rajput said button number four on the electronic voting machine was pressed twice – once by an Election Commission officer and once by chief electoral officer Saleena Singh. “So technically paper slips corresponding to BJP appeared twice on the VVPAT. But what actually created a controversy was the exchange of words between Saleena Singh and some journalists,” he said. Rajput admitted that he was not present at the demonstration, but said he had received information from reliable reporters who had attended it.

There is still a catch there. In his telephonic report during the news show, Rajput tactically avoids saying “two different buttons”.

The Dainik Bhaskar report, however, said that though different buttons were pressed, the BJP slip had appeared on the VVPAT machine.

What Election Commission said

The Election Commission sent a committee of officials to Bhind to investigate the allegations. On Friday, it held a press conference in Delhi where it announced, “The probe concluded that the EVMs used in the demo in Bhind was not brought from Uttar Pradesh. However, the VVPAT used in the demonstration was brought from UP.”

Chief electoral officer Saleena Singh was not available on phone on Saturday. But Sanjay Singh Baghel, the state-level nodal officer (Madhya Pradesh) in her office, clarified on the controversy. “The CEO’s remark [about taking reporters to the police station] that was highlighted in the media was technically correct but said in an informal manner,” Bagel told Scroll.in on Saturday.

He added, “First, the VVPAT machine did not show wrong slips. The problem was that it was not cleared. Second, misreporting on VVPAT results can attract punishment under Rule 45MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and so the CEO warned some media persons against doing so. The police station remark was in relation to potential violation of the rule, which is punishable by imprisonment and/or penalty and/or both. But it was said in a highly informal manner.”

According to Baghel, the matter was blown out of proportion after some political parties (he did not name any) took to social media and the entire narrative changed. “However, a few media organisations had reported the matter right on the first day itself,” he pointed out.

So what happened, actually?

Officials said the problem was that the demonstration on March 31 was unplanned. The protocol for a demonstration is that the machines used are reconfigured with random symbols – not the symbols of the BJP, Congress or any other party in the election fray. The Election Commission clarified that the confusion took place because old data stored in the machine in Uttar Pradesh had not been removed. The Hindu reported, “The machine, that was kept in reserve for the Uttar Pradesh polls, had undergone a standard protocol of randomisation and loading of symbols, but the old symbols were not removed ahead of the same procedure at Bhind in Madhya Pradesh.”

Republished with permission from Scroll.

The post It was not Lotus-Lotus: How misreporting led to a controversy over EVMs in Madhya Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Committee on Electoral Reforms set up by the Indian Radical Humanists Association has written to the Chief Election Commission (CEC) asking it to ensure that as per the Supreme Court’s 2013 order, only electronic voting machines (EVMs) equipped with voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) are used in the forthcoming Assembly elections in Gujarat.

Else, the Association has demanded that the CEC revert to paper ballots. It has also expressed the view that paper ballots are the ideal and the safest way for conducting elections in a democracy.

The letter addressed to Dr Nasim Zaidi, Chief Election Commissioner dated April 5 has sought a meeting with the CEC to press home the demand.

A note attached to the letter draws the CECs attention to the October 2013 Supreme Court judgement on the use of EVMs.

A writ petition was filed in the apex court in 2009 questioning the claim that EVMs cannot be tampered with or manipulated. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition asking the petitioners to pursue the matter with the CEC.

The matter was then taken up by political parties with the CEC. The latter appointed a technical experts committee to look into the complaints. Following trials the experts committee opined that EVMs equipped with VVPAT must be used during elections and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was accordingly amended.

Thereafter followed an important judgment of the Supreme Court in October 2013, in the case of Dr Subramanian Swamy vs Election Commission of India wherein the apex court ruled:
 

Taking a pragmatic view of the matter the Supreme Court gave discretionary powers to the CEC to introduce EVMs with VVPAT system to the extent practical for the 2014 general elections. It simultaneously directed the government of India “to provide required financial assistance for procurement of units of VVPAT”.

The CEC had told the court the purchase of VVPATs for all 13 lakh EVMs will cost around Rs 1,690 crore. This by no means is an astronomical figure.

Once again, the CEC has been faced with allegations of large scale tampering of EVMs during the recently concluded Assembly elections in several states, including UP and Punjab, and the demand by several political parties to revert to paper ballots.

While insisting there was no tampering, the CEC has also expressed its helplessness in procuring VVPAT units for all EVMs since the Centre has not made funds available.
But as reported by Sabrang India, with clear evidence of tampering of an EVM in MP recently, the reliability of EVMs is once again in serious question.

“The CEC does not have to beg the Centre for funds. Given the clear directive of the Supreme Court in 2013 it must demand it”, Gautam Thaker, national president of the Indian Radical Humanists Association told Sabrang India.

EVMs have been used for elections in India since 1989.

Concerned with ensuring free and fair elections in the face of recurring allegations of tampering of EVMs, the Association appointed a National Electoral Reforms Committee headed by Justice Hosbet Suresh, former judge of the Bombay High Court. The other members of the Committee are Dr Jagdeep Chhokar (ADR), Suresh Mehta former chief minister of Gujarat, Sanjay Parikh, Senior Supreme Court lawyers and others. The letter to the CEC follows the deliberations of the Committee.
 

The post CEC must follow SC order; ensure EVMs with paper trail or use paper ballot for Gujarat polls: Electoral Reforms Committee appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo Credit: DNA

In the build-up to Assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh, this is what the BJP MP said in his speech at a public gathering in Meerut on Friday:

"If the population is growing astronomically, if the problems are rising, let me tell you that the Hindus are not responsible for it… The people responsible are those who talk of having four wives and 40 children," the BJP MP said while addressing a gathering in Meerut. 

He proceeded to state: “Strict laws are required in this country if we really want to curb population. Parties need to rise above politics and take decision for the sake of the country,” he added.
The offensive remark has come within days of the Supreme Court’s January 2 verdict barring candidates from seeking votes in the name of religion.

Following a complaint filed by Congress leader Shehzad Poonawala, the Election Commission has sought a report from Meerut district magistrate over Sakshi Maharaj's speech. 

Sakshi Maharaj maintained that since he was not speaking at any election rally he cannot be prosecuted. He also claimed that he was speaking up for gender justice.

"I only talked in favor of women who have been made machines in the name of producing children and shameful practices like triple talaq. I should be rewarded for the fact that he and his four brothers have not married and therefore not added to the already exploding population," Sakshi Maharaj he said. 

The BJP, meanwhile, has distanced himself from statements made by the MP, clarifying that it was not the stand of the party.

Excerpts from Congressman Poonawalla’s with the Election Commission:

“I would like to draw the urgent and immediate attention of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) towards an extremely reprehensible and offensive set of remarks, violative of various sections of the Indian Penal Code,1860  made by Shri  Sakshi Maharaj , MP of the Bharatiya Janta Party, for his hate-inciting, communal remarks aimed at polarising the electorate on religious lines. These remarks are a blatant violation of IPC 1860, Model Code of Conduct and the recent verdict by Supreme Court that prohibits politicians from using religion to garner votes.

“The following offensive remarks, brimming with vitriol, were made by Shri Sakshi Maharaj: ‘Population is increased by those who support the concept of four wives and 40 children…

“In the past, whenever elections have taken place in Uttar Pradesh such statements have been made by leaders of the BJP. For example: recently Parvesh Verma of BJP made a communal statement upon which I filed a complaint. Amit Shah, BJP President, during 2014 Lok Sabha polls spoke of "Apman ka Badla" or Yogi Adityanath, BJP MP made statements about ‘Love Jihad’. Both these issues were raised by me before ECI and NCM and despite notices being issued the state authorities failed to act against them as per the law.

“The above statements may seem innocuous on being read without context. But the audience and the location at which these remarks have been made, reveal the sinister design of the said leader/s and party to exploit wounds of the recent communal conflagration in Western Uttar Pradesh.

“This is not a one-off remark made by Shri Sakshi Maharaj . There have been a series of remarks that have been made by various leaders of BJP and Sangh Parivar that show a deliberate attempt on their part to vitiate the atmosphere in the aftermath of the Muzaffarnagar riots and prior to the elections of 2017.

“The above said remarks find no basis in fact and are in flagrant violation of section 153, 153A, 153B, 505 of IPC 1860 and they deliberately, intentionally and maliciously calculated to incite hatred/ill will between communities and cause public mischief. It has violated the recent SC verdict in this regard too. These statements only aim to polarise the electorate along communal lines and have no basis in facts. 

“These statements are also a violation of the Model Code of Conduct set in place by the Election Commission of India and violates section 125 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 which prohibits promotion of enmity between classes in connection with elections and warrants immediate action under the law. The above said offences are both Cognizable and Non-Bailable and are serious in nature. Given that elections are a very serious affair, the implications of such statements on maintenance of law and order and ensuring free and fair elections can be adverse.”

The Complaint makes the following prayers:

a) Direct the registration of an FIR in the instant case against Shri Sakshi Maharaj for violation of various sections of IPC,1860 and the Model Code of Conduct. Also he must be arrested and prohibited from campaigning further in Uttar Pradesh. 

b) Direct the Election Commission of India to take necessary steps against the Bharatiya Janata Party for these remarks made by Shri Sakshi Maharaj as it is violative of various provisions of the Representation of People’s Act,1951 and the Model Code of Conduct.”

The post BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj at it yet again: spews hatred against India’s Muslims. appeared first on SabrangIndia.