Former judge urges constitutional safeguards for Election Commission as Supreme Court weighs Delhi voter-roll dispute
publishers 68articles 108first reported 3 Oct, 09:00 UTCdeveloping since 3 Oct · 28 editions
Former Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph has called for the appointment process and service conditions of the Election Commission of India to be enshrined in the Constitution rather than left to Parliament. Speaking online at a discussion organized by the Indian Association of Lawyers in Kerala, Joseph said constitutional safeguards would strengthen the commission’s integrity and independence.
At the same event, former Kerala High Court judge K. Balakrishnan Nair alleged that removals from electoral rolls during the special intensive revision violated principles of natural justice because required procedures were not followed. Writer K.R. Meera voiced support for youth-led protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged mass voter deletions and irregularities.
Separately, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was considering an order addressing confusion over forms used to restore names deleted during Delhi’s ongoing electoral-roll revision. Applicants told the court that affected voters were being directed to submit Form 6, intended for new registrations and containing a declaration that they had not voted before. They requested permission to use Form 8 or another form instead.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant moved the hearing from October 30 to October 28. The application forms part of a pending challenge alleging that the Election Commission inadequately disclosed which Delhi voters received notices and why. The court had earlier observed that notices appeared to have been issued “mechanically” to voters classified as doubtful.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 8 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 282 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 68
- Source articles
- 108
- Given to the writer
- 8, 8 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 282 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →