Submit report on voters’ list in Munugode by Friday: Telangana HC to ECI
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Bhasker Reddy on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to submit a report on the voters’ list enlistment applications and approvals and rejections in the Munugode constituency by Friday. The panel was dealing with a writ petition […]
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Bhasker Reddy on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to submit a report on the voters’ list enlistment applications and approvals and rejections in the Munugode constituency by Friday. The panel was dealing with a writ petition filed by BJP Telangana general secretary G Premender Reddy. The petitioner said an unusual number of Form 6 applications for enlistment were made in the last two months for the upcoming Munugode by-election. About 25,000 applications were being processed by the ECI without verifying the authenticity, the petitioner said. The ruling party was abusing its position to pressure officials into accepting and processing potentially bogus voters and passing them off as Munugode citizens and voters to fraudulently acquire polling places and votes.
The ECI told the court that about 20,000 voters list was processed by them, of which about 12,000 were accepted and 7,000 were rejected. It also said the enrolment of the voters list would freeze on the last day of nomination, but the petitioner sought to freeze the voter list as on July 31. The ECI said the applications are consistent with previous years and ruled out apprehension of unusual enlistments. The panel adjourned the case.
NEET admissions
The same panel directed the National Medical Commission to register the admission of a physically disabled student for NEET admissions. A writ plea was filed by Omer Saleem Ahmed, a 19-year-old, contending that the regulations stipulated for NEET admissions require both hands intact with sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion which are considered eligible for admission in the MBBS course. The petitioner contended that if he is not enrolled this year, he will lose the seat which will also result in him losing a year of education. The Chief Justice observed that people with physical disabilities are playing sports and advocates with visual impairments are arguing in courts. In view of the same, the Medical Commission was directed to register the petitioner in the counselling subject to further orders of the court to protect his interest. The panel adjourned the case to November 17.
PILs on Covid
The same panel disposed of a batch of PILs relating to Covid-19 pending before the court. Chikkudu Prabhakar contended that since the winter season is close, the PILs must be kept pending. However, the panel opined that since there is no need of the hour considering the number of cases based on a report filed by the Department of Medical Health, the PILs shall be closed. In another argument that compensation has not been paid to persons who died due to Covid-19, the panel observed that various people are dying due to malaria, dengue and starvation for which PILs are not filed and that Covid-19 cannot be given a special preference. In view of the same, a PIL relating to public medical infrastructure is pending.
Fake Insta profile
Justice Vijaysen Reddy granted time to police authorities to obtain instructions in a writ plea challenging the arrest of a student in an Instagram fake profile case. The writ was filed by Nikhil Sai Kumar Behra, contending that he is nowhere related to the complainant. The complaint stated, an unknown person has created fake Instagram IDs of a 17-year-old girl and endorsed certain cosmetic products in the name of the complainant and charged money in return for such promotions by companies. It was also pointed out that the police arrested the petitioner without his name being mentioned in the FIR. Moreover, the due procedure of law was not followed in filing the complaint, the petitioner contended. Even notice under section 41A of CrPC was not issued, the petitioner said. The judge observed that issuing notice under CrPC is not an absolute right and adjourned the case to October 17.
