00:00All right, so for what we know right now, there has been no FIR that has been lodged where allegations
00:06of sexual assault against Delhi police personnel was made by a YouTuber or a journalist.
00:14We are going to keep a keen eye on all developments, but on the other side.
00:18While, like we told you earlier, that there have been protests that have been gaining ground ever since the 2nd
00:24October,
00:25the big news came in from the top court of the country today, hearing a plea against the ECI is
00:31concerned.
00:32And one observation especially has now put the spotlight back on the Election Commission of India,
00:37where the top court of the country has practically said that it did not authorize the modification of Form 6,
00:43something that the Election Commission of India has repeatedly been stating, and it was a part of their press release
00:50just a week ago.
00:51Joining me right now is Dr. Rashwini Kumar, former Union Minister for Law and Justice of India.
00:57Dr. Kumar, thank you for taking the time out and joining us this evening.
01:00As the former law minister, Dr. Kumar, what do you make of the observations that have come in from the
01:05top court of the country?
01:06This also comes in the wake of a sitting Supreme Court judge, Mr. Ujjal Bhuyan,
01:12who has practically called out SIR as an unconstitutional exercise.
01:23These are two related as well as distinct developments.
01:28Let me first say that what Justice Guya has said is dot-on.
01:32There can be no question in any vibrant or true democracy where crores of...
01:39...can lose their voting rights on the basis of directives and on the basis of procedures
01:44which have come under severe criticism and legal scrutiny.
01:49As far as the observations of Honorable the Chief Justice in his court today are concerned,
01:56there is nothing one can add to or detract from his statement.
02:01The highest constitutional functionary on the judicial side has stated
02:06that the court never had the opportunity to consider or pronounce upon the validity of the changes in Form 6.
02:16Now, unless someone who has been a part of the legal proceedings
02:21can demonstratively establish this to be incorrect,
02:26I think the matter must rest there.
02:28Certain orders have been cited to suggest that the Chief Justice had authorized the Election Commission to make changes.
02:40If I read those orders rightly, I believe they mean that should it be necessary for the Election Commission
02:50to make certain changes which are permissible in law.
02:55They may go ahead and do so.
02:57But I don't think that order implies that the court had an opportunity of a detailed hearing
03:04on the ancestry clause in Form 6 after it was introduced.
03:10I think that is the right interpretation of the purport of the statement of the Chief Justice of India.
03:18Mr. Kumar, because there is a huge defense that is being made from a certain set that are speaking,
03:25you know, because there has been no official statement coming in from the EC.
03:31But because what is being said,
03:35that the Supreme Court, of course, did not approve the modification of Form 6,
03:39but it did uphold the ECI's residual authority to adopt the documentation framework for SIR.
03:46So it did give the ECI residual powers.
03:49Can that be interpreted as possibly giving the ECI the right to modify Form 6?
03:58Now, first of all, let me clarify the concept of residual power.
04:03The residual power is under Article 324 of the Constitution,
04:07which is a power of the widest amplitude.
04:10In the exercise of that power, certain laws and regulations,
04:15Parliament passes certain laws,
04:16and the Election Commission has been given certain authorities.
04:21In fact, the form which we are talking about is considered to be a statutory form
04:27in which changes can only be made through procedure established by law,
04:32which, according to the two dissenting Election Commissioners, was not done.
04:37That's the core of the controversy.
04:40Now, there is no question of the court investing the power with the Election Commission.
04:46Election Commission either has the power under the Constitution and the statutory law,
04:51or it doesn't have the power.
04:52But the order, if you read it in its entirety,
04:56does not permit an arbitrary exercise of power,
04:59or an exercise of power to do some things
05:02which are not explicitly recognized or doable under the statutory regime,
05:07including the relevant rules under which the forms are issued.
05:10So, therefore, now that this matter has reached this penultimate stage in the highest court,
05:18the matter will need to be resolved after hearing the Election Commissioners
05:23and the Election Commission.
05:25Now, either the Election Commission can, through its documentation,
05:30establish that these changes were indeed lawful and were authorized,
05:35or the Supreme Court will then have the power in the other alternative
05:41to pass such orders as it may deem necessary,
05:44including annulling of the orders as it has suggested.
05:47So, I think there are certain controversies around the purport of certain documentations.
05:57These are now going to be before the court,
06:00and the court has expressed the hope in no uncertain terms
06:04that the EC would give a detailed explanation,
06:07A, on whether the changes were lawful,
06:11B, whether the decisions were taken unanimously or by majority.
06:15Now, the core issue is, whatever was done had to be done
06:19according to established procedure.
06:22Was it done or not will only be clear from the affidavits.
06:26Well, thank you, sir, for joining us
06:29and explaining in detail and elucidating for our viewers
06:33on what would be the interpretation of what the court said today
06:37because there is a fair amount of controversy,
06:39the ball now, of course, in the Election Commission of India's court.
06:42Thank you, Dr. Kumar, for taking the time out and joining us.
06:45Thank you, Dr. Kumar.
