Govt Advts waiting for orders of local body election case photos today
Govt Advts waiting for orders of local body election case photos today
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
- Mhc news
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
More
Recent Posts
- Mhc news
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
