Estate Planning Attorney inUnion, SC

<img>

BKU Azad Trust’s petition before the SC challenged the four-week voter-verification timeline in Uttar Pradesh

The Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Azad Trust has approached the Supreme Court seeking a three-month extension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls underway in Uttar Pradesh, warning that the current four-week timeline is “administratively impossible” for a state with over 15.35 crore voters.

The Petitioner emphasised that the challenge is not to the SIR itself, but only to the compressed time frame which, it argues, risks widespread and arbitrary disenfranchisement.

Filed as a public interest litigation, the petition describes the Trust as a non-partisan organisation working across rural Uttar Pradesh to strengthen democratic participation among farmers and rural labourers. It states that despite submitting a representation to the Election Commission seeking more time for the SIR, no remedial action has followed, prompting the present plea.

The petition filed through AoR Ansar Ahmed Chaudhary and drawn by Advocates Charu Mathur, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Snehla Chaudhary and Alia Bano Zaidi underscores that the SIR is a welcome and essential democratic exercise, but insists that the four-week window is “manifestly inadequate” for a statewide, house-to-house verification.

The Trust seeks an extension solely to ensure accuracy of entries, proper disposal of claims and objections, inclusion of new or migrated voters, and protection against mass deletions caused by hurried verification. The Request, it stresses, aligns with the constitutional mandate of universal adult suffrage under Article 326.

Citing the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the petition notes that the law prescribes no fixed duration for such revisions and that timelines must be “reasonable, practicable and non-arbitrary”.

The petition highlights that past intensive revisions; 13 rounds from 1952 to 2004, were conducted over extended periods, with the last such exercise taking nearly two years. The ongoing SIR is the first multi-state effort in more than two decades, making adequate time and procedural fairness essential.

The Trust also details socio-economic and seasonal barriers facing rural voters. The SIR coincides with peak sugarcane harvesting, during which farmers and labourers are either fully occupied or migrate to other states. Illiteracy, limited access to Booth Level Officers, and mobility challenges for women and the elderly further exacerbate the risk of exclusion.

Serious concerns are raised regarding the use of untrained volunteers such as Anganwadi workers, NCC and NSS participants for door-to-door verification. The petition contends that these volunteers are not recognised under the statutory framework, have no formal training or confidentiality obligations, and are being handed sensitive personal information; posing significant data security and privacy risks at a time when “digital arrest” scams are rampant.

The petition also flags overburdening of Booth Level Officers, many of whom are school teachers compelled to complete an “impossible workload” within an unrealistic timeline. The Trust cites media reports noting extreme stress and even suicides linked to administrative pressure in other states during similar revisions.

Arguing that Uttar Pradesh faces no imminent Assembly or Parliamentary elections, the Trust asserts that there is no election-linked urgency justifying the compressed timeline. It proposes practical safeguards including special camps, trained personnel to assist vulnerable citizens, mandatory acknowledgment receipts for all submissions, and designated grievance officers at the block level.

Contending that the four-week time frame violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 326 of the Constitution, the Trust urges the Supreme Court to grant a reasonable extension to ensure the SIR is conducted with fairness, transparency and procedural integrity.

The petition concludes that it seeks not to obstruct the SIR, but to protect millions of rural and marginalised voters from being excluded due to administrative haste.

Case Title: Bharatiya Kisan Union Azad Trust v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

Date of Registration of PIL: November 27, 2025

Bench: Supreme Court of India (hearing expected)

The Supreme Court on Monday, November 17, heard a petition on the prolonged failure of the Union government and several states to appoint Information Commissioners.

Noting that vacancies were undermining the functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Himachal Pradesh to fill all vacant posts in its State Information Commission (SIC) within two months, and instructed Jharkhand to complete its long-pending appointment process within one month.

The Bench said it would hear the case again in the next few days.

Appearing for the petitioners, Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) and Amrita Johri, Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has been without a chief for more than two months and that eight of the ten sanctioned posts of Information Commissioners are vacant.

The CIC currently faces a backlog of nearly 30,000 cases. Bhushan informed the court that several SICs are also functioning with serious shortages.

These are the details shared by the petitioners on the pendency at the state level commissions:

Jharkhand: Defunct for more than five years; no longer registering new cases. Himachal Pradesh: Defunct for more than four months. Chhattisgarh: Operating with only one commissioner despite nearly 35,000 pending matters. Maharashtra: Three posts vacant; backlog close to 1 lakh cases. Tamil Nadu: Only seven commissioners sanctioned despite a backlog of around 41,000 cases. Madhya Pradesh: Operating with four commissioners; around 20,000 matters pending.

Also read: RTI at 20: How RTI Exposed Corruption and Why the Govt Fears It | Jaanne Bhi Do Yaaro

Since the last hearing on October 27, the Karnataka government has filled all vacancies in its commission, bringing it to the full sanctioned strength of 11 commissioners. Counsel for the Union of India told the court that a meeting of the selection committee would be held shortly and that appointments would be completed at the earliest.

The petitioners argued that governments were “completely undermining” citizens’ right to information by not making timely and transparent appointments, resulting in delays of over a year in the disposal of appeals and complaints. They also highlighted the need to follow the transparency standards mandated in the Supreme Court’s 2019 Anjali Bhardwaj judgment.

The petitioners were also represented by advocate Rahul Gupta.

This article went live on November seventeenth, two thousand twenty five, at thirty-nine minutes past six in the evening.

The PIL, filed by former Union secretary Emani Anantha Satyanarayana Sarma (EAS Sarma), alleges that RCOM, Reliance Infratel, and Reliance Telecom diverted ₹31,580 crore in bank loans.

A public interest litigation (PIL) has sought a court-monitored investigation into what it alleges to be a large-scale banking fraud involving Reliance Communications Ltd (RCOM), its group companies, and former promoter Anil Ambani.

The writ petition, filed by former Union secretary Emani Anantha Satyanarayana Sarma (E.A.S. Sarma) in the Supreme Court on Monday, was mentioned before a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan. The court listed the matter for hearing.

The plea, as seen by Mint, alleges that RCOM, Reliance Infratel, and Reliance Telecom diverted ₹31,580 crore in loans disbursed by the State Bank of India (SBI)-led consortium of banks between 2013 and 2017.

It argues that the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) August 2025 FIR and related Directorate of Enforcement (ED) proceedings “cover only a fraction” of the alleged wrongdoing and do not examine “the role of bank officials and regulators, despite detailed forensic audits pointing to widespread diversion of funds”.

“The investigating agencies… have overlooked the five-year delay in filing the FIR by the bank, which clearly indicates involvement of bank officials and other public servants whose conduct enabled, concealed, or facilitated the fraud.”

The 2020 audit

A 2020 forensic audit commissioned by SBI uncovered extensive financial irregularities, according to the petition.

The audit allegedly found large-scale diversion of funds, including repayment of unrelated loans, transfers to related parties, investments in mutual funds and fixed deposits that were immediately liquidated, and circular transactions used to disguise loan evergreening. It also recorded entries from bank accounts that had already been closed, suggesting fabrication of financial statements.

“Despite being in possession of the 2020 forensic audit report… the bank chose to take no statutory action until August 2025, a delay that cannot be explained without examining whether officers acted in collusion or with deliberate intent to shield the borrower group,” the plea adds.

The petition says shell entities such as Netizen Engineering and Kunj Bihari Developers were allegedly used to siphon funds, and cites sham preference-share structures that helped write off more than ₹1,800 crore in liabilities. The petitioner argues these findings show a deliberate effort to hide losses and divert public funds.

It also highlights similar patterns of financial irregularities in other Anil Ambani-linked firms, including Reliance Capital, involving the diversion of funds through loss-making subsidiaries, questionable write-downs, and offshore structures routed through Mauritius, Cyprus, and the British Virgin Islands—all pointing to possible Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) violations.

Sarma contends that the current CBI and ED probes do not address core issues, such as forged accounts, the use of non-existent bank accounts, shell-company layering, cross-border transactions, or the role of senior officials, auditors, and regulators. Without examining these aspects, the investigation “falls short of constitutional requirements under Article 21”.

A detailed late-night emailed query sent to Anish Niranjan Nanavaty, the current resolution professional of Reliance Communications, remained unanswered till press time.

A spokesperson for Reliance Communications, in response to Mint’s queries, referred to the company’s earlier statement issued on 30 October, when similar allegations were made by investigative portal Cobrapost that the company had committed a massive financial fraud exceeding ₹41,921 crore through diversion of funds across group companies since 2006.

At the time, the Reliance Group had strongly denied the charge, stating:

“Reliance Group strongly condemns Cobrapost’s malicious campaign to tarnish its reputation, and mislead stakeholders. The corporate rivals appear to be orchestrating this alleged exercise with the malicious intent to tarnish the reputation of Reliance Infrastructure Limited, Reliance Power Limited, Anil D. Ambani, and one of the largest family of over 55 lakh shareholders. Their underlying motive is to influence public perception, and manipulate market sentiment to serve their own vested commercial interest."

It further added: “A dead platform resurrected as a corporate hit-job. Dormant since 2019, Cobrapost has zero journalistic credibility, and a 100% track record of agenda-driven stings. Cobrapost’s sudden ‘revival’ is fully funded by entities with direct commercial interest to acquire Reliance Group assets. Malicious campaign aimed at crashing the stock prices, and engineer panic in stock markets to acquire Reliance Group assets. Recycling of old publicly available information, already examined by CBI, ED, SEBI and other agencies. An organized attempt to prejudice a fair trial.”

SC-monitored probe

The PIL seeks a Supreme Court-monitored, comprehensive investigation covering the full forensic audit record, related insolvency proceedings, and other available material. It also asks for probes into potential offences under the IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA, FEMA, Companies Act, SEBI Act, RBI guidelines, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

“Fraud of this magnitude, involving public money and public institutions, cannot be investigated in a piecemeal manner… The five-year unexplained delay by the complainant bank and the inertia displayed by the RBI and the ED clearly indicate deeper institutional complicity,” says the plea.

The petition comes as Anil Ambani and several Reliance Group (Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group) entities are already under scrutiny. The CBI recently conducted searches in Mumbai in a separate loan-fraud case involving RCOM. Meanwhile, the ED has widened its money-laundering probe, raiding more than 35 premises linked to over 50 group companies in July 2025.

By November 2025, the ED had frozen assets worth ₹3,084 crore and attached 132 acres of land in Navi Mumbai valued at ₹4,462 crore, citing suspected laundering of proceeds from bank loans.

RCOM officially entered the bankruptcy process in May 2019.

Analysis

Delhi Air Pollution Crisis | Can’t hold us to standards of developed countries, Union argues; SC asks for long term plan

Amicus says burning is undercounted; Union points to machinery subsidies; Court seeks durable plan beyond seasonal bans

Today, the Supreme Court pressed the Union Government, Punjab and Haryana to come back within a day with a workable, long-term solution to Delhi’s pollution emergency. The direction followed submissions that satellite data is undercounting farm fires and that the causes of stubble burning have remained unresolved for over a decade.

The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices K.V. Chandran and N.V. Anjaria made clear that short-term bans and seasonal restrictions cannot address the pollution situation in the capital.

On 15 October, the Court allowed the limited sale and use of green firecrackers across the NCR for a four-day window during Diwali. The Bench directed strict monitoring of air quality, enforcement and compliance to prevent violations

Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing as amicus curiae, told the Court that the present stubble-burning schedules cannot be understood without first recognising that Punjab’s paddy sowing was deliberately delayed from 2009 to conserve groundwater. “Because the paddy is delayed, the harvesting of paddy and then planting of wheat are compressed… farmers don’t have enough time. The easiest thing to do is to burn,” she submitted.

Singh emphasised that this burning is not out of negligence but compulsion. She recalled that it was at the Court’s intervention that specialised machinery, balers, Happy Seeders and Super Seeders had been heavily subsidised. “50 percent for individual farmers, 80 percent for cooperatives. Thousands of machines have been provided every year since 2018.”

She said Punjab’s new plea seeking ₹100 per quintal compensation from the Centre was a “repetitive” proposal that recurs annually despite huge public spending. “Why have they not been able to solve it? Asking for ₹100 per quintal is one solution, but not the solution,” she told the Bench.

Singh alerted the Bench to the fact that official stubble-burning numbers are incomplete. Referencing India Today, The Hindu and posts by NASA scientist Hiren Jetwa, she said farmers have been told the timing of satellite passes so they can burn after the satellite crosses. “Actual burning is being undercounted,” she stressed, adding that the CAQM’s own report confirms that current methods “do not capture all the burning.”

ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, acknowledged the limitations of current detection systems. “We do notice gaps… we have developed a protocol with ISRO and are working on two additional protocols to calculate burnt area,” she said, clarifying that these remain in trial phases.

Bhati submitted that Punjab’s present application was “nothing new,” pointing out that the Centre had already disbursed ₹1,963 crores to the State for crop-residue machinery. She added that machinery distribution is monitored by CAQM, with state governments involved at every step.

According to Bhati, Delhi’s overall pollution load is driven by its geographic position as well as human-generated emissions and stubble burning. She urged the Court to recognise the constraints of a developing country and added, “When you compare a developed country with developing countries, the same measures cannot apply. We are Global South; our realities have to be seen.”

Responding to concerns over AQI equipment, Bhati said the monitors used are “one of the best in the world”. The amicus, however, countered that some stations cap at 999 AQI, and sought an affidavit. Bhati explained that sprinkling of water around stations was part of GRAP-III requirements, including mandatory anti-smog guns for high-rise buildings.

Appearing for an intervenor, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan stated that “nothing like this has ever been seen before… we are in an emergency situation,”. He recalled that Delhi’s air improvements in the early 2000s were achieved only because past Benches took uncompromising measures, such as mandatory CNG conversion and removal of highly polluting industries.

Sankaranarayanan described the Punjab and Haryana paddy-sowing laws of 2009–10 as the root cause of the compressed crop cycle. The real solution, he argued, lay in advancing paddy sowing by at least two months, as practised in California and Beijing. He submitted, “Burning cannot be ended; it happens in farm systems globally. What matters is when the burning happens…it must not happen when the winds flow to Delhi.”

He added that geostationary satellite data shows farm-fire numbers have not actually fallen, and emissions in 2022, 2023 and 2024 have increased. “The numbers remain the same… the emissions remain the same,” he submitted.

Sankaranarayanan criticised India’s AQI thresholds. “When WHO says 50 is dangerous, our triggers are set far higher. PM2.5 is irreversible. Once it goes into my child’s lungs, it will never leave.” When CJI Gavai asked whether he expected everything to be stalled year-round, Sankaranarayanan replied, “It has to be stalled. Three out of ten deaths in Delhi are singularly caused by air pollution.”

From the Bench

The Court said that Delhi’s pollution cannot be handled through short-term or seasonal responses—the problem now requires a long-term plan. CJI Gavai noted that the city’s air quality has continued to deteriorate despite repeated restrictions every winter and remarked that “a long-term solution needs to be worked out”. When Sankaranarayanan urged a year-round halt on several activities, the Bench said this was not practical. “We cannot only think about one side… a large population depends on these activities,” CJI Gavai noted, adding that a blanket stop on construction was not possible.

The Court also directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana to ensure full implementation of the CAQM’s directions on stubble burning. The Bench noted that while recorded incidents may have reduced, the pollution levels have not. The Union Government was asked to place on record a concrete long-term proposal, after Singh and Bhati both stated that temporary measures were not sufficient. On the concern raised by the amicus regarding AQI monitors capping at 999 and the possibility that satellite systems were not capturing all fires, the Bench asked the Union to file an affidavit explaining the monitoring equipment in use and its accuracy.

The Court gave the authorities a day to respond and listed the matter for further hearing on 19 November.