Follow:
- Next story UPDATES’Do You Want To Make This Country An Open Jail’ : Justice (Retd) Chandru Speaks Against CAA-NRC
- Previous story [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1211605395753463809?s=08 [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: [12/30, 16:25] Karventhan Vidurhaisiruthai: The Opposition parties DMK, VCK and others filed a batch of writ petitions seeking for video coverage of counting of votes in local bodies elections through out tamilnadu and a direction to comply with rules 60 to 69 of TN Panchayat Elections Rules 1996, based on the representations sent by the opposition parties to State Election Commission. All the writ petition came up for hearing before the Honble Vacation Bench of Madras High Court today. The Opposition Parties were represented by various counsels under the lead of Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango, on behalf of DMK’s party functionary Mr.R.S.Bharathi, MP, Rajya Sabha and Ms.S.Deepika, Counsel representing VCK Legal wing Secretary Mr.D.Parventhan. whereas State Election Commission was represented by Senior Counsel Mr.Ar.L.Sunderesan. it was represented by State Election Commission that when they are strictly following the chapter VI (Rules 60 to 69) of TN Panchayat Rules, there is no question of directing them by way of mandamus sought by the Petitioners. In the course of arguement and in the Counter Affidavit filed by Commission, it was informed that the Returning Officers are instructed to install CCTV Cameras in counting booths and the coverage would not be only focussing the ballot papers which was vehemently opposed by all the Petitioner Counsels and district wise malpractices and incidents were reported before the court. Quiet interestingly, the State Government And Election Commission submitted that the Writ Petitions are merely based and presumptions and apprehensions and no past history was recorded. Whereas the same was countered by Petitioner’s Counsel that their (commission) own circular admitted about the past history of malpractices and booth capturing etc., Ultimately the Election Commission conceded to the fact that they would delete the line mentioning about the ” recording would not cover ballot papers ” in their circular dated 13.12.2019. Recording their ( State Election Commission) submission that the counting process would be videographed in the presence of candidates and their agents, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. [12/30, 16:26] Sekarreporter 1: 👍
Recent Posts
- MADRAS HIGH COURT SINGLE BENCH (Before: Mr. V. Parthiban, J.) P.SATHISH @ SATHISH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE, — Respondent Crl.R.C. Nos. 137, 955, 970, 982, 991, 993, 1025, 1066, 1142, 1241, 1286, 1322, 137
- Grsi writ allowed full order HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Writ Petition No.
- Patty Jeganathan Mhc Advt: சேகர், தி.மு.க. நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினராக மாண்புமிகு தமிழக முதல்வரும், தி.மு.க வின் தலைவரால், கழகத்தின் சார்பாக தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்ட வழக்கறிஞர் கிரிராஜன் அவர்கள், சென்னை பச்சையப்பன் கல்லூரி மாணவர்
- 138 cheque case different order of HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN S.A.Nos.142 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1.R.Barathbaran (Died)
- Whatsapp விசாரணை நீதிபதி சுவாமிநாதன், வழக்கின் மீதான தீர்ப்பை மாலை 4 மணிக்கு தள்ளிவைத்துள்ளார்.
More
Recent Posts
- MADRAS HIGH COURT SINGLE BENCH (Before: Mr. V. Parthiban, J.) P.SATHISH @ SATHISH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE, — Respondent Crl.R.C. Nos. 137, 955, 970, 982, 991, 993, 1025, 1066, 1142, 1241, 1286, 1322, 137
- Grsi writ allowed full order HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Writ Petition No.
- Patty Jeganathan Mhc Advt: சேகர், தி.மு.க. நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினராக மாண்புமிகு தமிழக முதல்வரும், தி.மு.க வின் தலைவரால், கழகத்தின் சார்பாக தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்ட வழக்கறிஞர் கிரிராஜன் அவர்கள், சென்னை பச்சையப்பன் கல்லூரி மாணவர்
- 138 cheque case different order of HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN S.A.Nos.142 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1.R.Barathbaran (Died)
- Whatsapp விசாரணை நீதிபதி சுவாமிநாதன், வழக்கின் மீதான தீர்ப்பை மாலை 4 மணிக்கு தள்ளிவைத்துள்ளார்.
