UP bypoll: Slow polling in Kairana
Lucknow, May 28: In the first two hours the voter turnout has been slow and only 12 per cent polling has been recorded in Uttar Pradesh's Kairana parliamentary seat on Monday, a poll official said.
Voting for Kairana in western Uttar Pradesh and the Noorpur assembly seat began amid tight security at 7 a.m. and will continue till 6 p.m.
In Kairana, the main contest is between Mriganka Singh of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) candidate Tabassum Hasan.
Singh, daughter of the late BJP MP from Kairana, Hukum Singh is counting on the sympathy wave in the name of her father and the power of the Yogi Adityanath government to win the election, while Hasan is pinning her hopes on the opposition unity as the Samajwadi Party (SP), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Nishad Party, Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) have extended their support to her.
In all there are 16,09,628 voters in Kairana of which 8,73,120 men, 7,36,431 women and 77 of the third gender.
In Noorpur, BJP's Avni Singh is pitted against Naimul Hasan of the SP. There are 3,06,226 male voters, 1,41,924 women and 10 from the third gender.
The Election Commission official said there are 2,056 polling booths and 1,094 polling centres.
To ensure free, fair and peaceful elections, the poll panel has deputed three general observers and two expenditure observers.
All the electronic voting machines (EVM's) being used in the two bypolls will have VVPAT machines to enable the voter to see for whom he or she has voted.
A total of 2,651 EVM control units, 2,651 ballot units and 2,596 VVPAT's are being used in the polling process, the official told here.
Realising that the elections are crucial and high stake, the poll panel has deputed 53 companies of the para-military forces here and 10 companies of the provincial armed constabulary (PAC).
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refuses to entertain PIL for action against inflammatory speeches
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a PIL that sought urgent intervention against inflammatory speeches by public figures, alleging these statements endanger national unity, security and promote divisive ideologies.
Observing that there was a difference between hate speeches and wrong assertions, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar told the counsel for PIL petitioner ‘Hindu Sena Samiti’ that it was not inclined to issue notice on the petition.
"We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged references. Further, there is a difference between hate speech and wrong assertions…In case the petitioner has any grievance, they may raise the same in accordance with law,” the bench said.
The bench said it was not making observations on the merits of the case.
The PIL had urged the court to direct the formulation of guidelines to prevent provocative rhetoric and to mandate penal action against individuals making statements that could jeopardise public order and the nation’s sovereignty.
Advocates Kunwar Aditya Singh and Swatantra Rai, appearing for the petitioner, said the political leaders’ remarks often veer towards incitement, potentially sparking public unrest.
They cited recent comments by the political figures, including former Madhya Pradesh Minister Sajjan Singh Verma and Bharatiya Kisan Union spokesperson Rakesh Tikait, as instances where rhetoric had allegedly threatened public order.
In his remarks, Verma had allegedly warned of a potential popular uprising, drawing comparisons to the protests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, while Tikait allegedly referenced the farmers' protests in a manner that suggested the possibility of violent insurrection.
The petition said the government has been inconsistent in enforcing legal restrictions on inflammatory speech.
It said the court, in its directions, had mandated prompt action against speech inciting unrest under some of the provisions of the IPC.
The 'Hindu Sena Samiti' had sought multiple reliefs, including the formulation of guidelines to regulate provocative speeches, penal action against violators and a directive for mandatory training programmes for politicians.
It also emphasised the importance of equal legal treatment, arguing that similar offences by civilians and journalists often see stringent actions from the state, while statements by political figures inciting unrest go largely unchecked.
