A total of 34 Assembly constituencies in Meghalaya 'expenditure sensitive': Chief Electoral Officer Kharkongor
The Hindu
Election to the 60-member Meghalaya Assembly will be held on February 27.
At least 34 Assembly constituencies in Meghalaya have been identified as "expenditure sensitive" and strict monitoring will be observed in those segments, Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) F. R. Kharkongor said on January 19. Election to the 60-member Meghalaya Assembly will be held on February 27.
"We have received reports that in at least 34 Assembly constituencies across the State, the use of money is very high and security personnel would be deployed and the model code of conduct would be enforced strictly," Mr. Kharkongor told PTI.
He said 747 polling booths are "vulnerable" and 399 polling booths have been identified as "critical" for various reasons.
The Election Commission of India has instructed to strictly monitor the situation and observers which include General Observers, Expenditure Observers and Police Observers would be deployed to curb the violation of the Model Code of Conduct across the State.
The CEO informed that as many as 120 companies of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) would be deployed in the upcoming Assembly elections. At present, 40 companies of CAPF including 10 companies of existing CAPF are already in the State, adding that a close watch is being kept on trouble mongers and history-sheeters ahead of the Assembly polls.
"A list of the trouble mongers has already been compiled. These trouble mongers and history-sheeters and known miscreants have already been identified at the micro level. They will be bound under section 107, if they misbehave or cause any tension among the electorate," he stated. The gazette notification for the February 27 Meghalaya Assembly election will be issued on January 31.
“We are judges and therefore, cannot act like Mughals of a bygone era ... the writ courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law,” the High Court of Karnataka observed while setting aside an order of a single judge, who in 2016 had extended the lease of a public premises allotted to a physically challenged person to 20 years contrary to 12-year period stipulated in the law.