20 March 2025 Current Affairs

  EC To Hear Please For Booth Wise Turnout.  

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 18, 2025) asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to meet with petitioners, Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra and representatives of NGO Association for Democratic Reform, and hear their demand to upload on its official website authenticated, scanned and legible account of votes recorded booth wise after each phase of polling.

Case Summary: Supreme Court's Directive on Voter Turnout Data

Background- On March 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to meet with:

• Petitioners: Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra and the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
• Demand: Upload authenticated, scanned, and legible accounts of votes recorded booth-wise after each phase of polling on the ECI’s official website.

Supreme Court's Directive

• Bench: Headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
• Timeline: Directed the petitioners to make their representation before the ECI within the next 10 days.
• ECI's Response: Represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, ECI agreed to grant the petitioners a hearing to resolve the issue.

Key Points Raised by the Petitioners

1. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR):

a. Advocated for the upload of scanned copies of Form 17C (account of votes recorded) from all polling stations after each phase of polling.

b. Legal Basis: Rule 49S and Rule 56C(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 mandate the Presiding Officer to prepare an account of votes recorded in Form 17C (Part I).

c. Concerns:

• Delay in publishing voter turnout details.
• Alleged discrepancies and sharp spikes in voter turnout data between initial and final figures in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

ECI’s Previous Stand on Disclosure of Voter Turnout Data

1. Affidavit (May 2024):

a. ECI had taken an uncompromising stand against public disclosure of voter turnout data, stating that: There was “no legal mandate” to provide voter turnout data to anyone except electoral candidates or their polling agents.

b. “Non-statutory” Initiative: ECI had been voluntarily disclosing voter turnout data through:

• Voter Turnout App
• ECI Website
• Press Releases

Concerns Raised by the Petitioners and Advocates

1. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi:

• Highlighted discrepancies between voter count at polling booths and published voter turnout data.
• Suggested that ECI’s reluctance to release detailed voter turnout data might be to prevent a “macro analysis” of the data.

2. Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for ADR):

• Stressed that “citizens have a right to know” the detailed polling data.
• Drew a parallel to previous Supreme Court interventions ensuring the disclosure of candidates’ criminal records.

Legal and Technical Aspects

1. Form 17C:

• Presiding Officers are required to prepare an account of votes recorded in Form 17C (Part I).
• Petitioners demanded that these forms be scanned and uploaded on the ECI website for public scrutiny.

2. ECI’s Defence:

• Argued that statutory provisions mandate sharing Form 17C only with candidates and their agents.
• Disclosed voter turnout data in 2014 through a non-statutory initiative accompanied by disclaimers.

  Mudumal’s On Tentative Lists Of UNESCO Heritage Sites.  

Six sites, including the Mudumal Megalithic Menhirs in Telangana and the palace-fortresses of the Bundelas in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, have been added to India's tentative list by UNESCO's World Heritage Centre.

Union Minister of Culture and Tourism, Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, informed the Lok Sabha on Monday that the other sites added to the list are Kanger Valley National Park in Chhattisgarh, Ashokan Edict Sites along the Mauryan Routes (multiple states), Chausath Yogini temples (multiple states), and Gupta temples in North India (multiple states).

Mudumal Megalithic Menhirs in Telangana: Key Points

1. Location:

• Near the banks of the Krishna River, ~4 km southwest of Mudumal village, Narayanpet district, Telangana.

2. Historical Significance:

• Over 3,500 years old, belonging to the Megalithic period.
• Associated with funerary rites of an ancient community.

3. Physical Features:

• Spans 89 acres with nearly 80 towering menhirs (upright stones), each between 10 to 15 feet tall.
• Includes approximately 3,000 alignment stones placed in rows with a 20-25 feet gap between them.

4. Celestial Alignment:

• Menhirs are carefully positioned to align with celestial events, highlighting advanced astronomical knowledge of the time.

5. Broader Context:

• Part of a larger megalithic landscape that includes:

- Burial sites

- Stone circles

- Inscribed rocks

6. Preservation and Heritage:

• Considered a significant remnant of South Asia’s megalithic tradition.
• Reflects ancient cultural practices and beliefs passed down through generations.

  SC To Consider If Lokpal Has Power Over Judges.  

A Bench of the Supreme Court’s senior-most judges headed by Justice B.R. Gavai on Tuesday (March 18, 2025) decided to examine in detail if judges of constitutional courts come within the jurisdiction of the country’s top ombudsman, Lokpal, like public functionaries including the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Members of Parliament and Central government officials.

Supreme Court vs Lokpal Jurisdiction over Judges: Key Points

1. Supreme Court’s Stand (March 18, 2025):

• Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai to examine if constitutional court judges fall under Lokpal’s jurisdiction.
• Suo motu case initiated after Lokpal’s January 27 order assumed jurisdiction to investigate High Court judges.
• February 20, 2025: Supreme Court stayed Lokpal’s order, calling it “very disturbing” and a threat to judicial independence.

2. Issue in Question:

• Whether judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court are considered “public servants” under Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
• Can an FIR be registered against a judge without prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI)?

3. Removal of Judges:

• Judges can be removed through parliamentary process under the Judges (Inquiry Act), 1968 for:

- Proved misbehavior or incapacity.

- Requires special majority in both Houses of Parliament.

4. Supreme Court’s In-House Procedure:

• Mechanism evolved to enquire into serious allegations against judges internally.

5. Lokpal’s January 27 Order:

• Lokpal assumed jurisdiction over High Court judges under Clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
• Lokpal interpreted “any person” in the clause to include judges.
• Concluded that the 2013 Act does not explicitly exclude judges.
• The order was forwarded to the CJI for consultation before initiating an enquiry.

Facts about Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

1. Introduction:

• Enacted to establish a system to address corruption complaints against public functionaries.
• Came into effect on January 16, 2014.

2. Composition:

• Lokpal is a multi-member body comprising:

- One Chairperson (current: Gyanesh Kumar, since February 2025).

- Up to 8 members, with 50% from judicial background.

3. Jurisdiction:

• Covers Prime Minister, Union Ministers, MPs, and Central government officials.
• Also includes bodies wholly or partly funded by the Central Government.

4. Powers and Functions:

• Investigates corruption allegations and can order preliminary and full investigations.
• Refers cases to CBI or other investigation agencies when required.

5. Exceptions:

• Prime Minister is excluded from Lokpal’s jurisdiction regarding:

- National security and foreign relations.

- Policy decisions.

6. Lokayuktas:

• State-level counterparts of Lokpal, established in all Indian states.

  India On 24th Spot On Free Speech Survey  

A new global survey by The Future of Free Speech, an independent U.S.-based think tank, has ranked India 24th out of the 33 countries surveyed on the question of support for free speech. Its report, titled ‘Who in the World Supports Free Speech?’ states that “while abstract support for free speech remains strong, commitment to protecting controversial speech is eroding in many parts of the world.”

Global Survey on Free Speech (October 2024): Key Findings

1. Survey Overview:

• Conducted by The Future of Free Speech (U.S.-based think tank).
• Report titled ‘Who in the World Supports Free Speech?’
• 33 countries surveyed; India ranked 24th with a score of 62.6.

2. Global Trends:

• Decline in Support: Most countries saw a decline in support for free speech since 2021.
• Top Performers:

- Norway (87.9) and Denmark (87.0) ranked highest.

- Authoritarian-leaning nations like Hungary (85.5) and Venezuela (81.8) scored high, suggesting a disconnect between public opinion and government restrictions.

• Improved Nations: Indonesia (56.8), Malaysia (55.4), and Pakistan (57.0) showed the most improvement despite remaining low in rankings.

3. India’s Performance:

• Rank: 24th out of 33 countries surveyed, between South Africa (66.9) and Lebanon (61.8).
• Public Attitudes:

- Majority of Indians value free speech without government censorship.

- 37% of Indians believe the government should prevent criticism of policies — highest percentage among surveyed countries.

- Comparatively, only 5% in the U.K. and 3% in Denmark supported such restrictions.

4. Disconnect in India:

• India, Hungary, and Venezuela show a disconnect between public support for free speech and actual protection in practice.
• India demonstrates democratic backsliding, with lower respect for freedom of expression despite high public support.

5. Perceived Progress in India:

• Indians and South Africans believed that their ability to speak freely improved in the past year.
• However, global observers and rankings suggest that free speech in India has actually worsened.

6. Quote by Jacob Mchangama:

• “Free speech is more than a legal right - it depends on a culture of open debate and tolerance for dissent. Without public commitment to free speech, even the strongest legal protections may become mere paper guarantees.”

Important Cases Related to Freedom of Speech and Expression in India

Quick Bits –