What happens when ctal guardians &custodians decide not to decide!! Last date for #meenakshi N nomination 8/6; #RO rejects her nom 9/6; matter heard patiently & wo a comment by #ECI on 10/6; last date of withdrawal is 11/6; no decision ever by #ECI reversing RO (as asked by Cong) & not even affirming RO! Case listed on 12/6 in #SC & #ECI wo deciding anything & wo any order uptodate announces the result of an uncontested election on 11/6 evening, not even awaiting #SC hearing! #Babasaheb & wise founders of our Ction can only draft ctal text; they cannot imbue such biased institutions with ctal spirit, objectivity and independence.

Ab koi French Hindi bolte hue ya gana gaye hue mil jaega

Is Indian state the deep state they’ve been warning us against ? This conversation between USA’s Secretary of State and Indian External Affairs Minister shows India in extremely compromised position A lot needs to be answered by the govt 🙏

यह एक भारतीय नाविक का शव है जिसे US Navy ने 4 दिन पहले मार डाला PM की तरफ से एक शब्द भी नहीं आया शव प्लास्टिक के बैग में सड़ रहा है

Is Indian state the deep state they’ve been warning us against ? This conversation between USA’s Secretary of State and Indian External Affairs Minister shows India in extremely compromised position A lot needs to be answered by the govt 🙏

Why is it that whenever india and US appear close to a trade deal the Deep State ensures that there is concerted criticism of US ? Just asking

यह ड्रामे बंद होने चाहिए। चाहे एथानॉल और बढ़ा दो पेट्रोल में, चाहे GST डबल कर दो, चाहे यूरिया का कट्टा 1000 का कर दो। बस यह बेशर्मी भरी स्तुति बंद होनी चाहिए।

"Let's stop the charade. Bharat Sarkar has become a full-blown authoritarian regime. India’s democracy is a hollow ritual now — elections every 5 years to legitimize one-man rule. Judiciary compromised, Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, states bullied into submission, critics hounded by agencies, and any questioning of the regime = 'tukde tukde gang'. This is not democracy. This is elected authoritarianism. The Constitution is being weaponised against its own citizens. History will judge this era harshly."

Leaving aside the politics of @BJP4India and @INCIndia, the case of Meenakshi Natarajan represents a complete travesty of justice and fair play by the entire system, cutting across all pillars of democracy. ✅ The Returning Officer rejected her nomination in blatant violation of Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Section 210 & 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ✅ On 11.06.2026, despite fervent pleas made by @DrAMSinghvi, @ECISVEEP sat on the judgment, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene even for a day till proper hearing. With no interim order by the Apex Court or the ECI, the Returning Officer declared the result! ✅ The matter was heard by the Supreme Court this forenoon. However, without examining the apparent illegality in the Returning Officer's order, the petition was dismissed in terms of the attached order on the ground that Article 329 bars judicial intervention after the declaration of results and that only an Election Petition can now be filed. ✅ While the fate of the case was effectively sealed when the Supreme Court declined to stay the declaration of the result, it was surprising to hear a legal luminary of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi's stature argue that the description of an entry in Form 26 overrides Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951!! ✅ Let me attempt to demonstrate why that contention is untenable. Form 26 was prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which themselves derive their authority from the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Yet it was implicitly argued that Entry 5(ii) of Form 26 overrides Section 33A of the parent statute!! ✅ Moreover, even after Section 33A and Rule 4A were introduced in August–September 2002, @SpokespersonECI, through its letter dated 10.09.2012, categorically clarified that Entry 5(ii) covers only those cases in which cognizance has been taken by a competent court. That condition was clearly not applicable in the case of @MNatarajanINC. ✅ Appearing virtually from London, Mr. Rohatgi argument, that a candidate's right to contest elections is merely a statutory right and not afundamental right, may hold relevance in normal circumstances. However, this was no ordinary case. By adopting a perverse interpretation of Section 33A, the Returning Officer descended to the nadir of partisan conduct and effectively denied the candidate the equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, Section 210 read with 223 of BNSS makes it conclusively fall beyond the purview of Entry 5(ii) of Form 26. I would be happy to be corrected by anyone looking at facts and laws objectively. I am sure that @sardesairajdeep @_YogendraYadav @KapilSibal @adrspeaks @Mukul_Rohatgi @harishsalvee et al will appreciate that, by not intervening in time, #GyaneshKumar led ECI and the top court just let the case shift from Article 32 to Article 329 and the Returning Officer hide under it.

Leaving aside the politics of @BJP4India and @INCIndia, the case of Meenakshi Natarajan represents a complete travesty of justice and fair play by the entire system, cutting across all pillars of democracy. ✅ The Returning Officer rejected her nomination in blatant violation of Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Section 210 & 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ✅ On 11.06.2026, despite fervent pleas made by @DrAMSinghvi, @ECISVEEP sat on the judgment, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene even for a day till proper hearing. With no interim order by the Apex Court or the ECI, the Returning Officer declared the result! ✅ The matter was heard by the Supreme Court this forenoon. However, without examining the apparent illegality in the Returning Officer's order, the petition was dismissed in terms of the attached order on the ground that Article 329 bars judicial intervention after the declaration of results and that only an Election Petition can now be filed. ✅ While the fate of the case was effectively sealed when the Supreme Court declined to stay the declaration of the result, it was surprising to hear a legal luminary of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi's stature argue that the description of an entry in Form 26 overrides Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951!! ✅ Let me attempt to demonstrate why that contention is untenable. Form 26 was prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which themselves derive their authority from the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Yet it was implicitly argued that Entry 5(ii) of Form 26 overrides Section 33A of the parent statute!! ✅ Moreover, even after Section 33A and Rule 4A were introduced in August–September 2002, @SpokespersonECI, through its letter dated 10.09.2012, categorically clarified that Entry 5(ii) covers only those cases in which cognizance has been taken by a competent court. That condition was clearly not applicable in the case of @MNatarajanINC. ✅ Appearing virtually from London, Mr. Rohatgi argument, that a candidate's right to contest elections is merely a statutory right and not afundamental right, may hold relevance in normal circumstances. However, this was no ordinary case. By adopting a perverse interpretation of Section 33A, the Returning Officer descended to the nadir of partisan conduct and effectively denied the candidate the equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, Section 210 read with 223 of BNSS makes it conclusively fall beyond the purview of Entry 5(ii) of Form 26. I would be happy to be corrected by anyone looking at facts and laws objectively. I am sure that @sardesairajdeep @_YogendraYadav @KapilSibal @adrspeaks @Mukul_Rohatgi @harishsalvee et al will appreciate that, by not intervening in time, #GyaneshKumar led ECI and the top court just let the case shift from Article 32 to Article 329 and the Returning Officer hide under it.