Supreme Court grants week's time to opposition leaders for filing reply on EC affidavit
Counting of VVPAT slips
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday asked 21 opposition leaders to file within a week their reply on the Election Commission's affidavit on their plea regarding Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in Lok Sabha polls.
The opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu had sought that VVPAT slips of at least 50 per cent of voting machines in each assembly constituency be checked randomly during Lok Sabha polls next month.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Opposition leaders, to file the reply by next Monday.
The poll panel had on Friday last sought dismissal of the petition.
In its affidavit, the EC had asserted in the apex court that opposition leaders have been unable to raise any ground for altering the existing system of random counting of VVPAT slips from one polling booth per assembly segment, which was "found to be most suitable" after due studies and tests.
The poll panel currently adopts a system of counting of VVPAT slips in one polling booth per assembly constituency in the Assembly polls and in one polling booth in each assembly segment for the Lok Sabha polls.
"Any further increase in the sample size of verification will lead to very negligible gain in the confidence level," the poll panel had said.
It had said the issues raised by parties have already been considered, studied and determined and the decision has been taken to conduct the present elections by adopting the prevalent system of counting of VVPAT slips.
The EC, which was asked on March 25 by the apex court to give its view on increasing the number of random sample surveys from one booth per assembly segment, had said that in the future elections it may consider suggestions for further improving the holding of polls in free and fair manner.
"It is submitted that with the imminent elections issues raised in the instant petitions are matters that have already been considered, studied and determined by the Election Commission of India and have since culminated in adopting the course of conduct of the imminent election in the present manner," the EC had said in its affidavit.
It had said the writ petition filed by 21 opposition leaders, "does not raise any ground or base for altering the existing system at this juncture and it is accordingly prayed that the present system as decided to be adopted for the imminent elections be continued with and the petition dismissed. "
The poll panel had maintained that it was always open to bringing about any improvements that would further the cause of free and fair elections.
"In so far as the grievances and reliefs prayed for in the instant writ petitions are concerned, these are all matters to which the Election Commission of India has applied itself, and after due studies and tests has arrived at the conclusion that the method as presently adopted has been found to be most suitable," the affidavit had said.
The poll panel had said that if at all with regard to future elections, any other suggestions that have not been considered are brought up, it would immediately look into the same in order to consider their efficacy and utility to the ultimate objective of conducting free and fair polls.
The affidavit had said that the 21 opposition leaders have not disclosed "even one specific instance for this Court to come to a conclusion that the existing system would in any manner adversely influence the free and fair elections."
Further, the poll panel had said that the petition does not raise any new or different apprehension or grievance as was raised in the earlier cases, nor brings out any grave or serious reason requiring a revamping of the system that has been adopted for the purpose of the conduct of the 2019 elections.
"It is further submitted that when the polls are imminent and polling is to commence from April 11, 2019, to now seek to alter the system adopted by the Election Commission of India at this stage might not be feasible," the affidavit had said.
In addition, the poll panel, which had opposed the petition of 21 opposition leaders, said 50 per cent VVPAT slip verification in each assembly segment of a Parliamentary Constituency or Assembly Constituency on an average shall enlarge the time required for counting to about six days.
"It is also relevant to mention that in many Assembly Constituencies, there are more than 400 polling stations, which will require about 8-9 days to complete the VVPAT slip count. It is pertinent to mention that demands for re-count that routinely arise of the VVPAT slips themselves, which will compound the time requirement," the affidavit had said.
It had further said that increased VVPAT slip counting will require extensive training and capacity building of election officials in the field and substantial increase of such officials will be required for deployment in the field.
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.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
