Bar Council of India Removes 107 Fake Advocates from Delhi Roll to Uphold Legal Integrity

Image
Bar Council of India Removes 107 Fake Advocates from  Delhi Roll to Uphold Legal Integrity The Bar Council of India (BCI) has taken decisive action in a sweeping initiative aimed at maintaining the integrity of the legal profession by removing 107 fake advocates  from the Roll of Advocates in Delhi  between 2019 and October 2024. This step comes as part of the BCI's rigorous verification process to ensure that only qualified, genuinely practising advocates remain in the profession, ultimately upholding public trust in the legal system. Strengthened Verification Framework Under Rule 32 This effort falls under Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 . The BCI  amended Rule 32 on June 23, 2023 , which empowered the BCI to verify, identify, and systematically remove unqualified and fake advocates from the Roll. The rule amendment has made the process of weeding out non-compliant individuals significantly more efficient. Accordi

Supreme Court Rejects Petitions for 100% Verification of EVM Votes with VVPAT Slips

Supreme Court Rejects Petitions for 100% Verification of EVM Votes with VVPAT Slips




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed all petitions seeking 100% verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) votes with their Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips. Additionally, the court declined the prayer to revert to the paper ballot voting system, asserting the credibility and safety of the current electoral process.


Directions by the Supreme Court


The apex court issued two crucial directions in light of the petitions. Firstly, it mandated the sealing of the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) in containers after the completion of the symbol loading process, to be stored securely for a minimum of 45 days. Secondly, it ruled that the burnt memory in the microcontroller EVM shall be subject to verification by a team of engineers post the declaration of results, upon request by candidates within seven days. The expenses for such verification are to be borne by the candidates, with refunds in case of tampering.


Judicial Perspective


Justice Dipankar Datta emphasized the importance of a critical yet constructive approach guided by evidence and reason in evaluating the electoral system's credibility. He cautioned against unwarranted skepticism, citing the repeated validation of EVMs by constitutional courts over 40 instances.


Election Commission's Assurance


Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar reiterated the assurance of the ECI regarding the safety of EVMs, asserting their 100% reliability. He highlighted the consistent affirmation of EVM credibility by constitutional courts, reaffirming public trust in the electoral process.


Petitions and Court Proceedings


The petitions, filed by various entities including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Arun Kumar Aggarwal, sought enhanced verification of EVM data against VVPAT records. During the proceedings, the court underscored the need for evidence-based scrutiny and discouraged unfounded suspicions.


Conclusion


While the Supreme Court's decision upholds the current electoral framework, it underscores the imperative for transparency and accountability in the electoral process. The ruling highlights the balance between ensuring electoral integrity and mitigating unwarranted skepticism, fostering public trust in India's democratic institutions. 


Relevant Laws and Regulations


The verdict aligns with existing electoral laws and regulations governing the conduct of elections in India, including provisions related to EVMs and VVPAT verification. The Election Commission of India plays a pivotal role in overseeing the implementation of these laws to uphold the fairness and transparency of the electoral process.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren

Equality Before Law