Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Shocking! The ECI’s clarification on Form 6 essentially sends the message that the Election Commission will not abide by the Supreme Court’s directions in the Delhi SIR case! The clarification insists on use of Form 6 for re-enrolling voters excluded from the draft voter list during SIR, despite SC’s...

AnjaliB_'s profile picture

Anjali Bhardwaj

56,477 subscribers

31,035 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

19 Yorum

FatFatia Facts 🏆 profil fotoğrafı
FatFatia Facts 🏆5 gün önce

Jokers .. Did you win the case in SC 🤔 ..then what's so shocking ? Why spreading fake and lies ..let it be proved on court first . SIR is on going process and steps will have to be taken as it progress to ensure a clean voter list is provided and illegals deceased etc are out

Priyanka Parija profil fotoğrafı
Priyanka Parija5 gün önce

There is something not reconciling on ECI side. Form 6 is not required at all and form 8 would suffice if ECI is being truthful that ASDD list creation does not delete the voter and is only a temporary mark of suspension. Also if someone's parent or grandparents are in early 2000 voter roll then that can be proved and no declaration is required as ECI has the proof themselves during the SIR and can link with a database column called included in previous SIR. Whoever are justifying form 6 at this junction are playing with words. @rishitaakhanna

Jayanti profil fotoğrafı
Jayanti5 gün önce

@prakashraaj Keep Bombing 24/7 👍🙏🌹🙏🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳.

Aankhenkholo profil fotoğrafı
Aankhenkholo5 gün önce

Firefighting tactics.

देशप्रेमी profil fotoğrafı
देशप्रेमी5 gün önce

Where is the question of SC directing EC? EC draws it's power from the Constitution itself. Beware of this kind of elements who are running thier funders' agenda under the garb of save democracy.

Ajay Kumar Khemka profil fotoğrafı
Ajay Kumar Khemka5 gün önce

@_YogendraYadav Match fixing

dheerajpavecha profil fotoğrafı
dheerajpavecha5 gün önce

are you male or female ?

Sheevum Goel AI (Proud हिंदू )🚩 profil fotoğrafı
Sheevum Goel AI (Proud हिंदू )🚩5 gün önce

Shut up , no one is hardly listening to you , atleast

GR profil fotoğrafı
GR5 gün önce

Take a chill pill and relax. You tried hard but have not veen able to prove any wrong doing, Intent to do wrong resulting in benefit to BJP. SUPARI activism is exposed.

keshav Singh profil fotoğrafı
keshav Singh5 gün önce

Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar knows that he does not have to comply with Supreme Court guidelines because, under the law, no action can be taken against him. Today, the Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Election Commission and the Central Government regarding Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Gyanesh Kumar knows that as long as Section 16 remains in force, he will enjoy legal protection, even after retirement. Section 16 must be declared unconstitutional. Otherwise, the Election Commission will continue to act arbitrarily, without accountability. No institution should be above the Constitution or the law.

Kk profil fotoğrafı
Kk5 gün önce

Super excellent

Zionist Warrior Brahmin profil fotoğrafı
Zionist Warrior Brahmin5 gün önce

Looks like husband is suffering from PE so she keeps thing Ayi Ma ECI

Prashanth Kumar profil fotoğrafı
Prashanth Kumar5 gün önce

Another fake story by Break India cabal

SK@Investor profil fotoğrafı
SK@Investor5 gün önce

Adjudication delayed or deferred

Youth Congress bly profil fotoğrafı
Youth Congress bly5 gün önce

Maam वह कहावत सुनी है गुरू घंटाल और चेला गुरू गया घंटाल गया चेला भी जायेगा @neha_aisa

sudip kar profil fotoğrafı
sudip kar5 gün önce

PIL please assisted by PIL Lawyer

Tamal profil fotoğrafı
Tamal5 gün önce

Anjali Aunty, regime change will never happen in India. And for 40 years BJP will rule. Modi ji, then Yogi ji then Himanta ji & will go on.

Satish profil fotoğrafı
Satish5 gün önce

Court skills prioritize cases based on importance. Right now, it's not moving or going anywhere. Also courts should abstain from giving oral warnings. It's time for stern written decision.

KamalCMehta profil fotoğrafı
KamalCMehta5 gün önce

Why you are so agitated, is haven falling ? they can fill form 8 instead of 6 ? What is a big deal about it !

Benzer Videolar

#WATCH | Delhi: On the high tea meeting at Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi's residence, Congress MP Karti Chidambaram says, "We have been consistently raising questions about the functioning of the Election Commission. The Election Commission has three election commissioners. Decisions have to be taken either unanimously or by majority. But it has been brought to light that the chief election commissioners are taking decisions unilaterally, and that is illegal. Then the entire engineering and the rollout of the SIR is very problematic, particularly Forms 6 and 7. We've been highlighting the deficiencies in Forms 6 and 7 and the weaponization of Form 7, by which genuine voters are being deleted from the voter list, and in Form 6, which is used to enroll new voters, questions that are not supposed to be asked, questions which have no bearing on your right to vote, are being asked in Form 6."
0:39

#WATCH | Delhi: On the high tea meeting at Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi's residence, Congress MP Karti Chidambaram says, "We have been consistently raising questions about the functioning of the Election Commission. The Election Commission has three election commissioners. Decisions have to be taken either unanimously or by majority. But it has been brought to light that the chief election commissioners are taking decisions unilaterally, and that is illegal. Then the entire engineering and the rollout of the SIR is very problematic, particularly Forms 6 and 7. We've been highlighting the deficiencies in Forms 6 and 7 and the weaponization of Form 7, by which genuine voters are being deleted from the voter list, and in Form 6, which is used to enroll new voters, questions that are not supposed to be asked, questions which have no bearing on your right to vote, are being asked in Form 6."

ANI

11,593 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

#WATCH | Delhi | BJP MP Sambit Patra says, "Last week, West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee herself appeared before the Supreme Court regarding the SIR... The whole country has seen how Mamata Banerjee has, in fact, spoken against the SIR, and has tried her best to mislead the people of Bengal and the whole country against the SIR. Even when she presented her arguments in the Supreme Court, she presented them in such a way as if Bengal was being subjected to atrocities... The kind of words she used was also objectionable. She stated that the Chief Election Commissioner has blood on his hands... Today, when the Supreme Court heard all these petitions... the bench has said in very clear terms... that every state should know and understand that the SIR will not be stopped at any cost... If any clarification is needed, or if there is any issue you do not understand that requires explanation, the Supreme Court will give its opinion on those issues... This is a strong reply to Mamata Banerjee..."
4:45

#WATCH | Delhi | BJP MP Sambit Patra says, "Last week, West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee herself appeared before the Supreme Court regarding the SIR... The whole country has seen how Mamata Banerjee has, in fact, spoken against the SIR, and has tried her best to mislead the people of Bengal and the whole country against the SIR. Even when she presented her arguments in the Supreme Court, she presented them in such a way as if Bengal was being subjected to atrocities... The kind of words she used was also objectionable. She stated that the Chief Election Commissioner has blood on his hands... Today, when the Supreme Court heard all these petitions... the bench has said in very clear terms... that every state should know and understand that the SIR will not be stopped at any cost... If any clarification is needed, or if there is any issue you do not understand that requires explanation, the Supreme Court will give its opinion on those issues... This is a strong reply to Mamata Banerjee..."

ANI

18,475 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

#WATCH | Delhi | On opposition protesting against the SIR exercise, Former Judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, says, "This entire noise is not being made by voters. It is being made by those political parties that could not win the election. If the voter has any grievance, the remedy is there. If your name is not there, you can tell the Election Commission, "I have been wrongly excluded." There is a remedy available. But condemning SIR itself, saying that SIR should not be there, is only for the purpose of ensuring that the Election Commission should not be allowed to function. SIR is a mandate given to the Election Commission by Parliament that it shall revise the electoral list every 10 years and shall remove the names of dead persons and verify whether the names of new voters have been included...There should be no person who is not a citizen of India having the right to vote. So, these are the mandates given by law to the Election Commission. The Election Commission is following these mandates, and I fail to understand how they can criticise the Election Commission for continuing or conducting SIR"
2:05

#WATCH | Delhi | On opposition protesting against the SIR exercise, Former Judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, says, "This entire noise is not being made by voters. It is being made by those political parties that could not win the election. If the voter has any grievance, the remedy is there. If your name is not there, you can tell the Election Commission, "I have been wrongly excluded." There is a remedy available. But condemning SIR itself, saying that SIR should not be there, is only for the purpose of ensuring that the Election Commission should not be allowed to function. SIR is a mandate given to the Election Commission by Parliament that it shall revise the electoral list every 10 years and shall remove the names of dead persons and verify whether the names of new voters have been included...There should be no person who is not a citizen of India having the right to vote. So, these are the mandates given by law to the Election Commission. The Election Commission is following these mandates, and I fail to understand how they can criticise the Election Commission for continuing or conducting SIR"

ANI

263,302 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Watch why the Supreme Court must recall its SIR judgment & call for records from ECI to ascertain who took the decision to undertake SIR, as Justice Gowda said. In response to my RTI application, the Principal Secretary of ECI stated that the Commission has not taken any decision on initiating a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across the country. Who took the decision to undertake SIR, if not the ECI?
3:20

Watch why the Supreme Court must recall its SIR judgment & call for records from ECI to ascertain who took the decision to undertake SIR, as Justice Gowda said. In response to my RTI application, the Principal Secretary of ECI stated that the Commission has not taken any decision on initiating a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across the country. Who took the decision to undertake SIR, if not the ECI?

Anjali Bhardwaj

17,916 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Form 6 controversy: What is the difference between amending Form 6 and appending an annexure to it? In this clip from Scrutiny, Anand Ranganathan breaks down the Form 6 and Annexure D controversy surrounding the Bihar and Bengal SIR exercises. Anand explains what he says the Supreme Court considered during the Bihar SIR case, what changed during the Bengal SIR and how an "ambiguous remark" by the SC has fuelled political claims and confusion. #AnandRanganathan #SIR #ElectionCommission #RahulGandhi #SupremeCourt #Form6 #AnnexureD #Scrutiny #TimesAxis Watch the full video 👉 Anand Ranganathan Aditi Prasad
2:49

Form 6 controversy: What is the difference between amending Form 6 and appending an annexure to it? In this clip from Scrutiny, Anand Ranganathan breaks down the Form 6 and Annexure D controversy surrounding the Bihar and Bengal SIR exercises. Anand explains what he says the Supreme Court considered during the Bihar SIR case, what changed during the Bengal SIR and how an "ambiguous remark" by the SC has fuelled political claims and confusion. #AnandRanganathan #SIR #ElectionCommission #RahulGandhi #SupremeCourt #Form6 #AnnexureD #Scrutiny #TimesAxis Watch the full video 👉 Anand Ranganathan Aditi Prasad

The Times Of India

38,123 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

#WATCH | Delhi | BJP National Spokesperson and MP Sambit Patra says, "Rahul Gandhi misled the public on two counts. First, he claimed that Form 6 was illegal—specifically mentioning the Bharatiya Janata Party in this context. However, the Court did not declare Form 6 illegal today. It noted that the petition mentioned a modification to Form 6, so the Court said it would look into the matter. We had not consented to any such modification. If any modification has indeed taken place, that will become clear only after a notice is issued. Yet, when we read the detailed order and look at the Election Commission's press release dated September 26, 2018, it becomes evident that the Commission had clearly stated there were no changes to Form 6 and that the Supreme Court had validated the declaration form attached to it. Therefore, there is no ambiguity here. Rahul Gandhi is lying when he claims that Form 6 was illegal and that the Supreme Court has said so today. This is exactly like the Rafale issue, where Rahul Gandhi claimed the Supreme Court had spoken of massive irregularities; later, he had to submit an affidavit to that very Supreme Court and offer an unconditional apology. The same thing is going to happen here. There are consequences for lying. The second issue on which Rahul Gandhi misled the public is his claim that the decision was not unanimous. This decision was not unanimous; meaning, the three Election Commissioners did not arrive at this decision collectively. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has clarified this in its fact-check. The first point of the fact-check states that the order regarding the SIR in Bihar, issued on June 24, 2025, was released with the unanimous approval of the Commission; this order was subsequently upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated May 27, 2026. It was indeed a unanimous decision, leaving no room for doubt. I remember this clearly because we held a press conference that day; when the press release was issued, the three Election Commissioners posed for a photograph together, and that very image was released to the public. On both these counts—these two specific issues—Rahul Gandhi attempted to mislead the nation and the public, effectively trying to create a state of anarchy"
2:49

#WATCH | Delhi | BJP National Spokesperson and MP Sambit Patra says, "Rahul Gandhi misled the public on two counts. First, he claimed that Form 6 was illegal—specifically mentioning the Bharatiya Janata Party in this context. However, the Court did not declare Form 6 illegal today. It noted that the petition mentioned a modification to Form 6, so the Court said it would look into the matter. We had not consented to any such modification. If any modification has indeed taken place, that will become clear only after a notice is issued. Yet, when we read the detailed order and look at the Election Commission's press release dated September 26, 2018, it becomes evident that the Commission had clearly stated there were no changes to Form 6 and that the Supreme Court had validated the declaration form attached to it. Therefore, there is no ambiguity here. Rahul Gandhi is lying when he claims that Form 6 was illegal and that the Supreme Court has said so today. This is exactly like the Rafale issue, where Rahul Gandhi claimed the Supreme Court had spoken of massive irregularities; later, he had to submit an affidavit to that very Supreme Court and offer an unconditional apology. The same thing is going to happen here. There are consequences for lying. The second issue on which Rahul Gandhi misled the public is his claim that the decision was not unanimous. This decision was not unanimous; meaning, the three Election Commissioners did not arrive at this decision collectively. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has clarified this in its fact-check. The first point of the fact-check states that the order regarding the SIR in Bihar, issued on June 24, 2025, was released with the unanimous approval of the Commission; this order was subsequently upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated May 27, 2026. It was indeed a unanimous decision, leaving no room for doubt. I remember this clearly because we held a press conference that day; when the press release was issued, the three Election Commissioners posed for a photograph together, and that very image was released to the public. On both these counts—these two specific issues—Rahul Gandhi attempted to mislead the nation and the public, effectively trying to create a state of anarchy"

ANI

32,374 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

SUPREME COMEDY In 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the assets of its judges. The Supreme Court got angry. "We don't listen to orders. We give orders." The Supreme Court appealed to the Delhi High Court against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. But the Delhi High Court said, "You have to release the information." So the Supreme Court appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to a 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court referred the matter back to the Supreme Court, saying this is your matter, you decide. Now the Supreme Court became the judge, jury and executioner in its own case. Cricket bookies would kill to have such a fixed match. A single-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and said a 3-judge bench should decide the case. The 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court sat on the case for 8 long years and arrived at a verdict - the matter should be looked at by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Finally in 2019, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict. It did not say that Supreme Court judges should declare their assets. It merely said the Supreme Court should release any information it had. So basically if a judge does not declare his assets, then there is nothing to declare. Comedy, yes. Funny, no.
3:34

SUPREME COMEDY In 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the assets of its judges. The Supreme Court got angry. "We don't listen to orders. We give orders." The Supreme Court appealed to the Delhi High Court against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. But the Delhi High Court said, "You have to release the information." So the Supreme Court appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to a 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court referred the matter back to the Supreme Court, saying this is your matter, you decide. Now the Supreme Court became the judge, jury and executioner in its own case. Cricket bookies would kill to have such a fixed match. A single-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and said a 3-judge bench should decide the case. The 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court sat on the case for 8 long years and arrived at a verdict - the matter should be looked at by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Finally in 2019, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict. It did not say that Supreme Court judges should declare their assets. It merely said the Supreme Court should release any information it had. So basically if a judge does not declare his assets, then there is nothing to declare. Comedy, yes. Funny, no.

KV Iyyer - BHARAT 🇮🇳🇮🇱

220,776 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

AAP National Media In-charge Anurag Dhanda said, "Yesterday, we had asked the Delhi Election Commission under what process Raghav Chadha ji's name was added to Delhi's voter list during SIR. The Election Commission itself has acknowledged that Form 6, 7, or 8 is required for adding a vote. But in Rajinder Nagar, Raghav Chadha ji's name is not in any list of Form 6 filed after August 31. So the question remains the same: Where did Raghav Chadha ji's 747th vote come from? Under what process was it added?"
5:56

AAP National Media In-charge Anurag Dhanda said, "Yesterday, we had asked the Delhi Election Commission under what process Raghav Chadha ji's name was added to Delhi's voter list during SIR. The Election Commission itself has acknowledged that Form 6, 7, or 8 is required for adding a vote. But in Rajinder Nagar, Raghav Chadha ji's name is not in any list of Form 6 filed after August 31. So the question remains the same: Where did Raghav Chadha ji's 747th vote come from? Under what process was it added?"

The Times Of India

18,609 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal exposes serious lapses by CEO, Delhi Office and Election Commission of India. His and his wife’s names appeared in the SIR notice list with the remark: “Unmapped with the last SIR.” However,.Sibal shows that his name was included in the 2002 SIR in Patna. In the video, he also displays the enumeration form submitted to the BLO, bearing both his signature and the BLO’s signature. Despite submitting the form and providing his previous SIR details for self-mapping, how were their names still classified as “unmapped”? This is not an isolated case: • 13,40,213 people received notices marked “Unmapped with the last SIR” • 7,65,112 received notices citing “Parent Name Mismatch” • 5,44,504 received notices citing “Self Name Mismatch” If even properly submitted and signed forms are being flagged, the Election Commission must explain the reliability of the entire process.
9:57

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal exposes serious lapses by CEO, Delhi Office and Election Commission of India. His and his wife’s names appeared in the SIR notice list with the remark: “Unmapped with the last SIR.” However,.Sibal shows that his name was included in the 2002 SIR in Patna. In the video, he also displays the enumeration form submitted to the BLO, bearing both his signature and the BLO’s signature. Despite submitting the form and providing his previous SIR details for self-mapping, how were their names still classified as “unmapped”? This is not an isolated case: • 13,40,213 people received notices marked “Unmapped with the last SIR” • 7,65,112 received notices citing “Parent Name Mismatch” • 5,44,504 received notices citing “Self Name Mismatch” If even properly submitted and signed forms are being flagged, the Election Commission must explain the reliability of the entire process.

Mohammed Zubair

87,065 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

"SIR is for deletion, not inclusion" - If a girl marries, changes her surname and starts living with her husband, her name is removed from the voter list. Mamata Banerjee today exposed the flaws of SIR in Supreme Court. Even CJI Surya Kant looked surprised when she explained the discrepancies in the process. Eventually, Supreme Court issued a notice to the Election Commission and the next hearing will be on 9th Feb. Godi media won't discuss this today, but Gyanesh will soon be held accountable. #DidiAtSupremeCourt
0:32

"SIR is for deletion, not inclusion" - If a girl marries, changes her surname and starts living with her husband, her name is removed from the voter list. Mamata Banerjee today exposed the flaws of SIR in Supreme Court. Even CJI Surya Kant looked surprised when she explained the discrepancies in the process. Eventually, Supreme Court issued a notice to the Election Commission and the next hearing will be on 9th Feb. Godi media won't discuss this today, but Gyanesh will soon be held accountable. #DidiAtSupremeCourt

Digital Nehru

72,816 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

WB Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari announced today that those excluded from the SIR list will be denied government services! On May 27 (2026), the Supreme Court clearly stated in its verdict: "the SIR outcome cannot be used for any other purpose, least of all to conclusively determine citizenship." Therefore, no government has the authority to strip citizens of their basic rights or benefits on the pretext of their names being absent from the voter list.
0:47

WB Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari announced today that those excluded from the SIR list will be denied government services! On May 27 (2026), the Supreme Court clearly stated in its verdict: "the SIR outcome cannot be used for any other purpose, least of all to conclusively determine citizenship." Therefore, no government has the authority to strip citizens of their basic rights or benefits on the pretext of their names being absent from the voter list.

Supti kanjilal

99,809 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

VIDEO | On the EC-SIR row, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan says, “The revelation made today is extremely serious. It shows that the Election Commission has become the fiefdom of one person, Gyanesh Kumar. There are three Election Commissioners, and the other two have repeatedly raised objections to decisions of the Election Commission. Yet Gyanesh Kumar continues to do what he wants and ignores the other two Election Commissioners. An even more serious aspect of this revelation is that Gyanesh Kumar has centralised the entire IT system of the Election Commission to such an extent that all decisions are being taken centrally by the Election Commission in Delhi, including whose name should be added to the electoral roll, whose name should not be added and whose name should be deleted... This is such a serious matter that Gyanesh Kumar should not merely be removed from office; he should also be prosecuted. This is what needs to be done in this country.”
1:31

VIDEO | On the EC-SIR row, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan says, “The revelation made today is extremely serious. It shows that the Election Commission has become the fiefdom of one person, Gyanesh Kumar. There are three Election Commissioners, and the other two have repeatedly raised objections to decisions of the Election Commission. Yet Gyanesh Kumar continues to do what he wants and ignores the other two Election Commissioners. An even more serious aspect of this revelation is that Gyanesh Kumar has centralised the entire IT system of the Election Commission to such an extent that all decisions are being taken centrally by the Election Commission in Delhi, including whose name should be added to the electoral roll, whose name should not be added and whose name should be deleted... This is such a serious matter that Gyanesh Kumar should not merely be removed from office; he should also be prosecuted. This is what needs to be done in this country.”

Press Trust of India

35,344 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

#WATCH | Kolkata, West Bengal: On hearing in Calcutta High Court on the petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Trinamool Congress (TMC) in connection with the probe agency's recent raids on the premises of I-PAC, TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee says, "ED counsel sought for an adjournment because the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. I clearly stated that I am appearing on behalf of Mamata Banerjee as the Chairperson of the All India Trinamool Congress, and not as the Chief Minister of West Bengal. Secondly, we have stated that blame has been made against the court in this Special Leave Petition (SLP). Thirdly, we have said that we are ready to proceed with the case. The case should be heard... The court has recorded that since the ED has sought time on the ground that the Special Leave Petition is pending, i.e., requested an adjournment, and the lawyers for the respondents have stated that they are ready to participate in the hearing of the case, the matter has been adjourned until the SLP is disposed of by the Supreme Court..."
2:15

#WATCH | Kolkata, West Bengal: On hearing in Calcutta High Court on the petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Trinamool Congress (TMC) in connection with the probe agency's recent raids on the premises of I-PAC, TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee says, "ED counsel sought for an adjournment because the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. I clearly stated that I am appearing on behalf of Mamata Banerjee as the Chairperson of the All India Trinamool Congress, and not as the Chief Minister of West Bengal. Secondly, we have stated that blame has been made against the court in this Special Leave Petition (SLP). Thirdly, we have said that we are ready to proceed with the case. The case should be heard... The court has recorded that since the ED has sought time on the ground that the Special Leave Petition is pending, i.e., requested an adjournment, and the lawyers for the respondents have stated that they are ready to participate in the hearing of the case, the matter has been adjourned until the SLP is disposed of by the Supreme Court..."

ANI

44,022 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

#WATCH | Delhi: Former Joint Director ECI, Mohammad Amin says, "... The Election Commission filed its affidavit today at the last date for submission, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on October 27. The affidavit bears the signatures of all three Election Commissioners, reaffirming that the Commission functions impartially and takes decisions collectively. While differences may arise during internal discussions, the final decisions are taken jointly. The Commission also clarified that the SIR decision was unanimous and that the matter concerning the letter to the Cabinet Secretary was an internal issue that has now been resolved."
1:19

#WATCH | Delhi: Former Joint Director ECI, Mohammad Amin says, "... The Election Commission filed its affidavit today at the last date for submission, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on October 27. The affidavit bears the signatures of all three Election Commissioners, reaffirming that the Commission functions impartially and takes decisions collectively. While differences may arise during internal discussions, the final decisions are taken jointly. The Commission also clarified that the SIR decision was unanimous and that the matter concerning the letter to the Cabinet Secretary was an internal issue that has now been resolved."

ANI

26,036 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

Extremely significant letter issued by the Election Commission of India following Supreme Court’s directions in our Delhi SIR case. Watch 👇
4:11

Extremely significant letter issued by the Election Commission of India following Supreme Court’s directions in our Delhi SIR case. Watch 👇

Anjali Bhardwaj

30,867 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

"Did not approve modifications to Form 6- Supreme court bench led by Chief Justice contradicts EC press release which said SC upheld declaration for Form 6. EC now says it press release was speaking of declaration attached to Form 6 through Bihar SIR order which was approved by the SC on 27th May. Fiery conversation with Hitesh Jain Tehseen_Pasha Kailash Vasdev Sugata Srinivasaraju & Justice Sanjib Banerjee. In full
30:02

"Did not approve modifications to Form 6- Supreme court bench led by Chief Justice contradicts EC press release which said SC upheld declaration for Form 6. EC now says it press release was speaking of declaration attached to Form 6 through Bihar SIR order which was approved by the SC on 27th May. Fiery conversation with Hitesh Jain Tehseen_Pasha Kailash Vasdev Sugata Srinivasaraju & Justice Sanjib Banerjee. In full

barkha dutt

22,281 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce