The Supreme Court 9-judge bench will commence hearing of the issues referred in the Sabarimala review on April 7, 2026. The hearing is proposed to be concluded on April 22.

The Supreme Court 9-judge bench will commence hearing of the issues referred in the Sabarimala review on April 7, 2026. The hearing is proposed to be concluded on April 22.

The composition of the 9-judge bench will be notified by the Chief Justice of India separately through an administrative order. 

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi passed the orders today for the listing of the reference before the 9-judge bench.  

The parties supporting the review of the Sabarimala judgment will make arguments from April 7 to April 9. The parties opposing the review are given the dates from April 14-16 for their arguments. The rejoinder submissions will be on April 21, and the hearings are expected to be concluded on April 22.

Today, the 3-judge bench was dealing with the batch of review petitions and writ petitions arising out of the Court's September 2018 judgment, which allowed women of menstruating age to enter into the Lord Ayyappa temple. Listed alongwith these were petitions relating to the issues of Muslim women's entry in Dargah/mosques, entry of Parsi women in Fire Temples if they have married a non-Parsi, validity of the practices of excommunication and Female Genital Mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Central Government was supporting the review of the judgment.

Background

In November, 2018, the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'. Then CJI Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud constituted the majority, while lone woman judge on the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented.

The judgment of the CJI held that Lord Ayyappa devotees will not constitute a separate religious denomination. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship(Authorization of Entry) Rules 1965, which prohibited entry of women in Sabarimala, was also struck down as unconstitutional. Assailing this decision, a bunch of review petitions and writ petitions later came to be filed.

On November 14, 2019, a 5-judge bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi observed by a 3:2 majority that certain issues in the Sabarimala review were common to the pending cases concerning women entry in Mosques, validity of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community and the right of Parsi women who had married outside community to enter Fire Temples.

It decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices. It was expressed that the issue whether Court can interfere in essential practices of religion needed examination by larger bench. The minority comprised of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice RF Nariman, who dissented noting that the issues of Parsi women and Muslim women were not before the Sabarimala bench and hence the matters could not be tagged.

In January, 2020, the Court notified the constitution of a 9-judge bench to consider the larger issues. It comprised then CJI SA Bobde, Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageshwara Rao, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, S Abdul Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant (now CJI). In February, the 9-judge bench held that the reference was maintainable and questions of law could be referred to a larger bench in review. It framed 7 issues for consideration:

1. What is the scope and ambit of right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

2. What is the inter-play between the rights of persons under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and rights of religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?

3. Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health?

4. What is the scope and extent of the word 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?

5. What is the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice as referred to in Article 25 of the Constitution of India?

6. What is the meaning of expression "Sections of Hindus" occurring in Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India?

7. Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that religious denomination or religious group by filing a PIL?

In February, 2023, a Constitution Bench referred the question of the validity of the practice of excommunication prevalent among the Dawoodi Bohras to the nine-Judge Bench constituted to review the 2018 Sabarimala judgement.

Case Title: KANTARU RAJEEVARU Versus INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THR.ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MS. BHAKTI PASRIJA AND ORS., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 373/2006

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-sabarimala-review-9-judge-bench-reference-dawoodi-bohra-parsi-muslim-women-entry-dargah-fire-temple-523254

ഇമ്മാതിരി ഒരു ചർച്ച കേട്ടിട്ടില്ല... സംഘികളെ പൊളിച്ചടുക്കിയ സംവാദം👌👌😂| t...

The judge whose ruling freed Dileep: Who is Honey Varghese?

When the Ernakulam Principal and Sessions Court delivered its most closely watched verdict of the year — the judgment acquitting Malayalam actor Dileep while convicting six others in the 2017 abduction and assault case — it placed the presiding officer, Judge Honey M Varghese, firmly at the centre of public debate.

For a judge who has long maintained a low public profile, the scrutiny surrounding her decisions, courtroom conduct, and personal history has now reached an unprecedented level.

A Judge Under the Spotlight

Honey Varghese has spent more than a decade in the higher judicial service, and her rise has been largely through direct recruitment.

Beginning her legal career in Thrissur, where she worked under senior lawyer KB Mohandas, she moved from trial practice to the bench in 2012 after securing appointment as a District and Sessions Judge.

Over the years, she has presided over a range of sensitive cases, including those handled by the CBI special court in Ernakulam.

Her transfer to the Additional Special Sessions Court in 2019 — the court designated to hear the high-profile 2017 actor assault case — marked a turning point. By late 2021, she was promoted to head the Ernakulam Principal and Sessions Court, placing her in charge of one of Kerala’s most sensitive criminal trials.

A Complex Judicial Image

Those who have appeared before Judge Honey often describe her as firm, methodical, and unafraid to assert control in a crowded courtroom.

At the same time, she has demonstrated moments of sharp empathy — something lawyers observed in smaller domestic violence cases, where she has allowed survivors additional time to present evidence or articulate their distress.

It is this perceived contrast — compassion in some matters, and rigidity in others — that has generated debate over her judicial temperament, especially when measured against the deeply traumatic testimony in the actor-assault matter.

Repeated Concerns Raised by the Survivor

The survivor in the case approached the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court multiple times seeking a transfer of trial, asserting that the atmosphere in Judge Honey’s courtroom left her feeling distressed and retraumatised.

Though higher courts did not shift the case away from her, the petitions themselves contributed to a wider public conversation about whether the judge’s approach adequately centred the experiences of survivors of sexual violence.

Controversies That Shadowed the Trial

Among the points of contention repeatedly invoked in public discussions were:

1. Allegations that a 2020 forensic report — confirming unauthorised access to the memory card containing the assault visuals — was not brought to the fore promptly during proceedings.
2. Assertions by critics that the prosecution faced unusual resistance in placing certain evidence or arguments before the court.
3. Questions over potential political influences, stemming from the widely acknowledged fact that Honey Varghese comes from a family closely associated with Kerala’s Left political movement.

None of these claims resulted in formal findings against the judge, yet the perception of bias remained a central narrative throughout the nearly eight-year trial.

Her Public Remarks and the Reactions They Triggered

A brief line from a speech at a Social Welfare Department event in 2022 — where Judge Honey noted that a prosecutor’s duty was not solely to secure convictions but to uphold justice on behalf of society — sparked renewed controversy.

Although legally sound, the remark was dissected intensely because it came amid accusations that the prosecution was being constrained during the trial.

A Career Now Defined by One Verdict

With the acquittal of Dileep and the conviction of six others, Judge Honey’s judicial reasoning will be analysed in the coming months as the state weighs its next legal steps.

For now, her long career — shaped by political scrutiny, survivor petitions, and legal complexities — stands distilled into a single, polarising judgment.

As appeals and reactions continue, the debate around Honey Varghese is no longer only about one case. It is also about what the public expects from judges handling sensitive crimes, the transparency demanded in digital-evidence cases, and how personal background and courtroom demeanor shape confidence in the justice system

The judge whose ruling freed Dileep: Who is Honey Varghese? https://share.google/mZJHB5gaAhkezfPif

Justice Abhay Oka Vm Tarkunde Lecture India Needs Scientific Temper But Anyone Proposing Religious Reform Gets Targeted By Religious Groups

Speaking at an event, former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka today expressed that India is in need of building a scientific temper to fight prevailing superstitions but anyone who proposes religious reforms gets targeted by religious groups.

"Though our Constitution has existed for 76 years now, our society has not generally supported great people who have consistently promoted the development of scientific temper and reforms. Unfortunately, in our society, anyone who proposes reforms in religious practices based on science or with help of science gets targeted by people belonging to religious groups. This applies squarely to all religions. In a country like India, we desperately need scientific temper as in our society, superstitions prevail. We don't understand the difference between faith and superstitions. The moment the social reformers speak against superstitions, it is projected as if they are interfering with rights conferred under Article 25 of the Constitution", he said.

Justice Oka was speaking at the 16th V.M. Tarkunde Memorial Lecture organized by the Tarkunde Memorial Foundation at the India International Centre, New Delhi. His address was centred on the theme “Our Constitution and the Fundamental Duty to Develop a Scientific Temper". The VM Tarkunde Memorial Lecture is held annually to honor the legacy of Justice V.M. Tarkunde, renowned for his contributions to civil liberties, constitutionalism, and public interest lawyering in India.

Justice Oka's lecture highlighted that fundamental duties (in Part IV of the Constitution) compliment fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. He particularly spoke about clauses (g) and (h) of Article 51A, which cast a fundamental duty on every citizen,

"(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform"

Justice Oka further said that the precautionary principle in environmental jurisprudence can be traced to Article 51A. However, he refrained from commenting on whether the Supreme Court has departed from the said principle. Notably, the Supreme Court, by 2:1 majority, recently recalled its judgment in Vanashakti judgment, which barred the Union from granting post-facto environmental clearances.

Explaining how fundamental rights and duties compliment each other, Justice Oka said that as there exists a right to freedom of speech and expression [under Article 19(1)(a)] and the state and individual have duty to abide by the Constitution [under Article 51A(a)], it becomes duty of every citizen to ensure that the fundamental right to speech and expression of other citizen is protected and this becomes collective duty of the state.

Likewise, he gave the example of right to live a dignified life under Article 21. "the right to live dignified life is within compass of Article 21 and by virtue of clause g of Article 51A, it becomes fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and preserve the environment so that right of other citizen to enjoy fundamental right under Article 21 to live in pollution free environment is protected. In this context, clause h becomes very important. It casts duty on every citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism and spirit of inquiry and reform...I believe that a person can live a dignified life only if we have developed a scientific temper."

Justice Oka further opined that developing scientific temper involves rational thinking and spirit of reform. Unless we have the integrity to accept data and results even when they are inconvenient to popular beliefs, we can't have a scientific temper, he said.

Pointing to prevailing superstitions in Indian society, Justice Oka stressed that proposed reforms are often met with hostility even though the reforms can actually help the cause of the religion. The former judge also observed that using technology does not necessarily mean we have developed scientific temper. He further alleged failure on the part of the state to perform its collective duty, pointing to a proposal to cut 100-year-old trees for Kumbh Mela in 2027.

"if we had perfectly performed our duty of developing scientific temper and state of reforms, we would not have allowed killing and sacrificing of animals for celebrating religious festivals, we would not have allowed the indiscriminate use of loudspeakers during our festivals", Justice Oka said.

He also claimed that the political class appeases the populace in the name of religion and is therefore unwilling to carry out reforms. In closing, Justice Oka advocated for the need to make certain fundamental duties [clauses (a), (g) and (h)] part of the academic curriculum to sensitise the future generations.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/justice-abhay-oka-vm-tarkunde-lecture-india-needs-scientific-temper-but-anyone-proposing-religious-reform-gets-targeted-by-religious-groups-312402

'Hospitals Must Display Rates, Mustn't Deny Emergency Care For Not Paying Advance' : Kerala High Court Upholds Clinical Establishments Act K. Salma Jennath

27 Nov 2025 8:52 AM (14 mins read ) Hospitals Must Display Rates, Mustnt Deny Emergency Care For Not Paying Advance : Kerala High Court Upholds Clinical Establishments Act Listen to this Article The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (November 26) dismissed the appeals preferred by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the Kerala Private Hospitals Association against a Single Bench's order upholding the provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishment Act and Rules. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. upheld the law, which was implemented in a phased manner from 2019, and dismissed the challenges to it being vague, arbitrary, impractical and disproportionate. Also Read - Kerala High Court Directs Calicut University To Convene Senate Within 30 Days To Replace Recused Member In VC Search Committee “Let this judgment serve not merely as a declaration of law but as a reaffirmation of the right to dignified, ethical, and equitable medical care,” the Bench had remarked. The Bench further opined that it was in conformity with global standards, similar to those in the United States and the European Union. The appellants had primarily challenged the mandatory requirement to disclose details of hospital employees and the obligation to publish the list of fees to be charged for each treatment item and for packages. They had also challenged the mandate under the law to compulsorily provide lifesaving treatments and safe transport to patients. Also Read - 'Prima Facie Money Laundering Made Out': Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Businessman Accused In Cashew Import Scam The State defended the law, which is intended to safeguard public health, uphold patient rights and safety, promote transparency and ethical standards in clinical practice, better equip hospitals and clinics for public health emergencies and for maintaining consistent and high standard, and to create a level-playing field within the healthcare sector. Examining the provisions under challenge and the statutory framework, the Court observed that the Act merely lays down the manner of implementation of already existing constitutional duties: Also Read - Buyer–Seller Credit Dealings Not “Mutual, Open & Current Account” Under Article 1 Of Limitation Act: Kerala High Court “The Act does not create new constraints; rather, it operationalizes these constitutional duties through a registration-cum- standards regime, a transparency mandate, and enforceable minimum requirements for emergency care and stabilization.” Mandatory price disclosure Rejecting the argument that the terms “types of service” and “package rates” falling under Section 39 are vague, the Bench opined: “The Act does not require clairvoyant pre-pricing of every possible clinical contingency; it mandates good faith baseline tariffs for identifiable services and packages, with itemized billing for add-ons, complications, and extended stays.” Also Read - Kerala High Court Permits State To Accept Land Tax From Residents Of Disputed Munambam Land The Bench further spoke in favour of the price disclosure mandate, which, in its opinion, is less intrusive than price-fixation for services and also serves a public interest by providing protection against exploitative charging. Defining “package rates”, it observed that the same “refer to baseline tariffs for commonly performed procedures with standard inclusions. Unforeseen complications, management of co-morbidities, extended ICU stays, and high-end consumables may be billed separately, provided there is disclosure and clinical justification.” Disclosure of details of doctors and other employees The Court noted that there is no requirement to publish personal information of doctors and other employees to the public. In fact, it is necessary to be furnished only to satisfy about availability and competence of staff. “the measure: (i) has legality, as it is grounded in a statutory source; (ii) pursues a legitimate aim, namely patient safety and quality of care; (iii) is proportionate, being limited to role-appropriate particulars and enabling audit or inspection; and (iv) carries procedural safeguards, including use limitation and the possibility of review or appeal of adverse actions,” the Bench remarked, referring to Justice Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the landmark decision on privacy. It further opined that the State may issue guidelines for limitation of purpose for disclosure, data minimization, confidentiality, etc. “Staff data (Form 2A) shall be collected and used solely for regulatory purposes. The authority shall frame guidelines on confidentiality, purpose limitation, access control, and retention. Publication to the general public is not required unless specifically authorised by law,” was the Court's direction in this regard. Emergency care and safe transfer The Court was of the opinion that the obligations are in conformity with global standards. It remarked: “compliance is capacity-graded: all establishments must provide first aid and stabilization to the extent feasible and ensure safe transfer, including communication, documentation, and transport. No establishment shall deny initial lifesaving aid on account of non- payment or lapses in documentation.” Court's guidelines As a conclusion to the judgment, the Court had also issued certain guidelines for the effective implementation of the same. “Consistent with the Single Judge's approach and past pandemic-era directions, we underscore the following: Visible rate display at admissions, billing counters, and on websites; itemised bills available on request. District-level grievance cells under the DMO/Registering Authority, with a time-bound complaints process; periodic compliance audits focusing on emergency care denials, exorbitant add-ons, and staffing minima. Digital registers/portals for registration status, inspection notes (appropriately redacted), and speaking orders in penalty actions. Training and drills on triage/stabilization, infection control, and safe transfer protocols, drawing on WHO/EUSEM materials.” Capacity-graded emergency care The hospitals are directed to stabilize emergency patients according to capacity and not to deny them life-saving aid for non-payment of advance or lack of documents. Further, there is a direction to hand over all test reports and discharge summary when a patient leaves the hospital's care. Transparency and public display The list of services, baseline and package rates, patients' rights and contact details of the grievance officers are to be prominently displayed in English and Malayalam at the reception as well as the official websites of the clinical establishments. Updated patient information brochure A brochure containing services offered, baseline and package rates, insurance claim procedures, discharge procedures, grievance redressal, etc. are to be provided in English/Malayalam at the time of admission. These have to be promptly updated. Grievance redressal mechanism Grievance redressal desks are to be maintained with reference numbers for each complaint, which shall be endeavoured to be resolved within 7 working days. Escalations for serious and unresolved issues are also to be provided. Compliance filings Every clinical establishment is required to file an undertaking of compliance with the Act within 30 days and the same has to be audited within 60 days, followed by periodically audits. Patient remedies Patient remedies can be achieved through complaints before the consumer commissions, the local police, the State Police Chief, legal services authorities, etc. The Court also directed the Registry to forward the judgment to the Chief Secretary of the state government and to the State Police Chief, who are to issue appropriate orders to ensure strict compliance laid down under the Act and the judgment. “State Government shall publicise the effective contents/directions issued in this judgment through visual media and print media, for a period of one month, in Malayalam and English daily, having wide circulation, so as to ensure broad public and to enable citizens to understand their rights regarding medical treatment,” the Court further directed and has asked for a compliance report in this regard. Thus, it disposed of the writ appeals. Guidelines The Court's guidelines, as stated in the judgment, are extracted : i. Capacity-Graded Emergency Care Every clinical establishment shall, at a minimum: (a) screen and stabilize emergency patients within its capacity; and (b) ensure safe transfer, with proper documentation and communication, to a higher centre when indicated. No establishment shall deny initial life-saving aid on the ground of non-payment of advance or lack of documents. (c) At the time of discharge of a patient from the hospital, the hospital authorities shall ensure that, along with the discharge summary, all investigation reports pertaining to the treatment, such as ECG, X-ray, CT scan, and other test reports, are also handed over to enable the patient to maintain proper records. ii. Transparency and Public Display (Reception/Admission Areas and Website) Each clinical establishment shall prominently display, in Malayalam and English, at the Reception/Admission desk and on its official website: (a) the list of services offered. (b) baseline and package rates for commonly performed procedures with a note that unforeseen complications or additional procedures shall be itemised. (c) key facility information, including bed categories, availability of ICU/OT, imaging and laboratory facilities, and ambulance/contact details. (d) a summary of Patients' Rights, including emergency care, informed consent, confidentiality, non-discrimination, access to medical records within 72 hours, itemised bills, and grievance redressal pathway; and (e) the name, phone number, and email ID of the Grievance Officer, along with contact details of the District Registering Authority/DMO helpline and other escalation contacts. iii. Patient Information Brochure At the time of admission, and as a downloadable document from the establishment's website, every hospital shall provide a brochure or leaflet in Malayalam and English containing information on: - services offered. - baseline and package rates with inclusion deposit and refund policy. - insurance/TPA empanelment and claim procedures. - estimate and billing policy. - discharge procedures. - ambulance and transport charges. - 24×7 emergency care protocol; and - grievance redressal and escalation mechanism. iv. Grievance Redress Mechanism (a) Every clinical establishment shall maintain a Grievance Desk/Helpline and register every complaint with a unique reference number, issuing an acknowledgement immediately through SMS, WhatsApp, or in physical form. (b) The establishment shall endeavour to resolve all complaints within seven (7) working days. Unresolved or serious matters shall be escalated to the District Registering Authority/DMO without delay. (c) Each establishment shall maintain a Complaint Register, in physical or electronic form, available for inspection. A summary of grievances and actions taken shall form part of the monthly compliance reports submitted to the competent authority. v. Updates and Accuracy All displayed rate lists, brochures, and website information shall be kept current. Any change in services, rates, or grievance contact details shall be promptly updated, with the date of revision clearly indicated. vi. Compliance with the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 (a) Every clinical establishment shall file an undertaking of compliance with Sections 39 and 47 of the Act and the above directions within thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment before the District Registering Authority. (b) The said Authority shall conduct verification audits within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment and thereafter periodically, taking appropriate action for any deficiencies detected, in accordance with the Act and Rules. vii. Patient Remedies (Without Prejudice to Other Rights) Patients shall remain at liberty to: (a) pursue remedies for deficiency of service before the competent Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. (b) lodge complaints with the local police where appropriate, including cases involving alleged fraud or cheating. (c) escalate grave or systemic grievances to the Chief Secretary and the State Police Chief; and (d) seek assistance from the District or State Legal Services Authorities for advice and facilitation. All establishments shall cooperate fully and issue receipts for all payments and complaints received. viii. Language and Accessibility All mandatory displays, notices, and brochures shall be provided in Malayalam and English, and shall be clear, legible, and prominently accessible at the Reception/Admission areas and other conspicuous locations within each establishment, as well as on the homepage of its official website. ix. Non-Compliance Non-compliance with these guidelines shall attract regulatory action under the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018, including suspension or cancellation of registration and imposition of penalties, in addition to any civil, criminal, or constitutional remedies available to patients. Case No: WA NO. 1621 OF 2025 and connected case Case Title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 779 Counsel for the appellants: V.V. Asokan (Sr.), K.I. Mayankutty Mather (Sr.), K. Anand, T.K. Sreekala, S. Parvathi, Nikitha Susan Paulson, Uthara Asokan Counsel for the respondents: N. Manoj Kumar - State Attorney, S. Kannan - Senior Government Pleader, Ajith Joy

ECI has to tell the nation how it counted 1,77,673 more than the polled votes in Bihar Assembly Election 2025 ?

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 1/12

ECI has to tell the nation how it counted 1,77,673 more than the polled votes?

Why did it change the total number of electors twice after announcing the final SIR figure?

Why did the ECI not announce the gross number of votes polled in the state?

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393123248075248?t=uBxqcaLA3tfTN2z9PStJmA&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 2/12

As per EC press note No. ECI/PN/313/2025 dated 30/09/2025 the total electors after it  ‘successfully completed’ SIR in Bihar is 

~ 7.42 crores. 

Why approximation (~) instead of actual number?

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 3/12

As per press note No. ECI/PN/316/2025 dated 6th October, 2025, EC revised this number after adding 1,63,619 Service Voters and brought the total number to 

7,43,55,976

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393147117805633?t=CBApZz0K0FEWd9ojO54m5Q&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 4/12

The press note No. ECI/PN/351/2025 dated 11.11.2025, after completion of polling put the total number of electors at 7,45,26,858 

and said the polling was 66.91%

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393158996062410?t=GJ2On_uRTY2BMYIEXQ_HRg&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 5/12

Then, in the press note No. ECI/PN/352/2025 dated 12.11.2025, EC made an upward revision of polling to 67.13%

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393169326694636?t=1N4PUZgStlKHXvC_D7gT7g&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 6/12

The gross number of votes polled - calculated as 67.13% of 7,45,26,858 comes to 5,00,29,880

But the total number of votes counted from all the 243 constituencies adds up to 5,02,07,553

(I have screenshots of the ECI declarations for all 243)

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393174087168095?t=Kb3k4RI-koiR7k5JV2mI3Q&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 7/12

The difference between polled votes 

and counted votes from all 243 constituencies comes to 1,77,673 votes

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393178109583367?t=65rfpMKTvUVEl7REGRS9mQ&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 8/12

ECI has to tell the nation why and how did it count 1,77,673 more than the polled votes?

Why did it change the total number of electors twice after announcing the final SIR figure?

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393181938995403?t=SAWQLJa-ZOhPX2O1hFQhYQ&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 9/12

Why did the ECI not announce the gross number of votes polled in the state? 

Why did they not reveal the gross number of votes polled in each constituency?

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393185868968088?t=YYw5qle6dQTjTjI2alLydA&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 10/12

When EC can give percentage polling figures what difficulty does it face to announce the gross voting figures state-wide and constituency-wise?

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393189975191608?t=Zs2OCZGpV5oqe1ecDNqC9A&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 11/12

Is the ECI's doing/non-doing simply an innocent muddle? Or incompetence? Or carelessness? Or a tendentious smokescreen/opacity to benefit a Party? 

Or sheer arrogance that it’s above the law and accountability?

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393193976574305?t=r6yXsbooL8j3xQqRnc_GnA&s=19

Decoding Bihar Miracle - 12/12

Is the beneficiary of this ECI Muddle/Incompetence/Carelessness/Arrogance/Tendentious smokescreen /Opacity, innocent and unaware of it and really thinks that its mandate in Bihar is genuine and is a result of its winning the hearts of the people?

https://x.com/parakala/status/1991393197940175101?t=ALSFyVTo5S9Hia1NtObj9A&s=19