top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Plea in HC for fresh polls, new body

Dr. Rumi F. Beramji Mumbai : A senior medical practitioner has knocked on the doors of the Bombay High Court, alleging serious irregularities in the functioning of the Maharashtra Council of Acupuncture (MCA) and challenging the continuation of its current Administrator.   In a petition filed through Advocate Sharad V. Natu, Dr. Laxman Bhimrao Sawant has termed the appointment and prolonged tenure of former MCA Chairman as “illegal and arbitrary,”  and detrimental to the cause of Acupuncture....

Plea in HC for fresh polls, new body

Dr. Rumi F. Beramji Mumbai : A senior medical practitioner has knocked on the doors of the Bombay High Court, alleging serious irregularities in the functioning of the Maharashtra Council of Acupuncture (MCA) and challenging the continuation of its current Administrator.   In a petition filed through Advocate Sharad V. Natu, Dr. Laxman Bhimrao Sawant has termed the appointment and prolonged tenure of former MCA Chairman as “illegal and arbitrary,”  and detrimental to the cause of Acupuncture.   Dr. Beramji, who headed the five-member statutory body 's inaugural term (from May 2018 to May 2023), was subsequently appointed as its Administrator after the council’s term expired.   According to Dr. Sawant’s plea, the Administrator’s appointment was initially meant to be a stop-gap arrangement for one year, and it was ‘extended’ later. However, nearly three years later, the position continues without fresh elections being conducted, raising questions over adherence to statutory norms and principles of governance.   Dr. Sawant has further contended that while Dr. Beramji was installed as Administrator, the remaining members of the council were effectively superseded, leaving the regulatory body without its mandated collective structure, and over 6500-members directionless.   The petition claims that the delay in conducting elections was justified on the grounds of an incomplete voter list, but this reason was flimsy considering the extended time lapse.   The petition, likely to come up for hearing on Tuesday (April 21), also levelled serious allegations regarding the manner in which the MCA has been run under the Administrator. It claims decisions have been taken unilaterally, whimsically and without transparency or institutional accountability.   Besides, Dr. Sawant has made allegations of selective targeting of certain members who have attempted to raise valid issues, including the globally-renowned noted acupuncture expert Dr. P. B. Lohiya of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.   Adding to the controversy, a former MCA office-bearer has claimed that over the past three years, approvals were granted to more than a dozen acupuncture colleges in undue haste, purportedly in violation of prescribed norms and alleged shady deals.   These institutions, it is claimed, either exist only on paper or lack essential infrastructure, faculty, and facilities. In addition, around two dozen Continuous Acupuncture Education (CAE) centres were also cleared during this period.   In his multiple prayers to the high court, Dr. Sawant has sought quashing Dr. Beramji’s appointment as MCA Administrator and setting aside all policy decisions taken during his tenure in that capacity in the last three years.   The petition also urged the court to direct the state government to conduct elections to elect and reconstitute a new five-member MCA within two months.   Pending this, the plea seeks an order restraining the Administrator from continuing in office or interfering in the functioning of the MCA or the CAEs in the interest of free and fair elections or the cause of Acupuncture.   Sources within the MCA have described the situation as “deeply concerning,” alleging that individuals of international standing, such as Dr. Lohiya - who has treated prominent personalities like Sachin Tendulkar, the late Manoj Kumar, state and central ministers and other public figures - are being unfairly hounded.   The petition has called for a comprehensive review of all decisions taken during the Administrator’s tenure, a financial audit of the MCA’s financial affairs, and an independent probe by the Medical Education & Drugs Department (MEDD) into the approvals granted to the institutions in recent years.   Despite repeated attempts by  ‘ The Perfect Voice’ , top MCA officials like the Administrator or the Registrar Narayan Nawale, were not available for their comments.

The Law Behind Electoral Rolls

Part 3: Who Can Be Registered as a Voter? Understanding Sections 19 and 20 of the RPA, 1950

In Part 1 of this series, we traced the constitutional foundations of India’s election system, focusing on the powers of the Election Commission under Articles 324–329 and the safeguards built to ensure its independence. Part 2 then moved to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which sets out how electoral rolls are prepared and maintained.


In Part 3, we turn to a crucial question: who can be registered as a voter? Sections 19 and 20 of the Act spell out the conditions for voter registration, particularly the meaning of being an ordinary resident of a constituency. This concept is central to determining where a citizen’s name is entered on the electoral roll, and it has been clarified both through legislation and landmark Supreme Court judgments. 


So, what do these sections actually say? The name of any citizen of India who has attained the age of 18 may be entered on the electoral roll. But the question arises: on which electoral roll? Since each Assembly constituency has its own roll, in which constituency should that person’s name appear? The answer lies in Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. This provision makes it clear that an individual’s name will be entered on the roll of the constituency where he or she is ordinarily resident. Before turning to Section 20, however, it is worth first examining what Section 19 of the same act states.


Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, states that a person can be registered as a voter if they are at least 18 years old and are an ordinary resident of the constituency. Section 20 explains the concept of an ordinary resident in detail, and understanding this is essential.


To qualify as an ordinary resident under Section 20, a person does not need to own or permanently stay in a house in the constituency, nor reside there all year. The focus is on their intent and current residence at the time of electoral registration; temporary absences for work do not disqualify them as ordinary residents.


Even if a government official, Defence personnel, officer in the Defence, or police officer has a house in a village and they are living in another city of the state on account of the work, they remain an ordinary resident of the constituency in which their name is registered as a voter. If they live in another city or state on account of work and do not reside in their native place, then their name cannot be removed from the relevant electoral roll. Similarly, if a mentally ill person is undergoing treatment in a hospital, or if a person is in jail due to a sentence passed by a competent court, or a case is pending against them, it does not mean that he has ceased to be an ordinary resident of their constituency. Detailed provisions in this regard have been made in the sub-sections of this section. If there is any objection to the ordinary residence of a person, then the Central Government should decide based on rules framed by the Central Government in consultation with the Election Commission of India, taking into account all the facts of the case.


Jyoti Basu vs Debi Ghosal

This is an important case in the history of Indian elections. In this case, the Supreme Court has given a detailed explanation on whether the right to vote is a fundamental right or a right granted by law. In it, the Supreme Court has said that it is a completely statutory right. This right can be exercised only as per the provisions of the statute. It means this right is not unlimited. This right can be exercised by the voters only as per the provisions made in the Representation of the People Act, and this law will control it. When an election petition can be filed, in which court the case will be tried, and what will be the time limit for filing the case – all these will be applicable only as per the relevant law. The Supreme Court has said that this is a special type of provision.


To be continued…


(The writer is an author and a digital journalism teacher. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page