UP govt deploys over 10,000 female police personnel along Kanwar Yatra route
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
10 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to reject Presidential reference on Governors' assent timelines, saying it suppresses key rulings and misuses Article 143 to reopen already settled issues Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported. Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading. Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'. The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon'ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'.' Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases: * State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana * State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab * State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said. 'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself' Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference. 'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.' The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route. Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said. What the Supreme Court had held earlier In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process. On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state. Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays. Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Scroll.in
10 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Bihar voter roll revision should be aimed at mass inclusion, not exclusion: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said the Election Commission should focus on ' mass inclusion ' rather than 'en masse exclusion' while revising the electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections, The Hindu reported. The court reiterated its July 10 directions asking the poll body to consider adding Aadhaar cards and voter identity cards to the list of valid documents for the ongoing exercise. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the Election Commission's decision to exclude the two documents from the list of acceptable proof of citizenship for those whose names did not appear in the 2003 electoral roll. In an affidavit filed on July 21, the poll body maintained that Aadhaar and ration cards could not be included as standalone valid documents. It had argued that such documents can be obtained through fraudulent means, which was why they were not sufficient. In response to this, the court said that any of the documents enlisted by the poll body could be forged and questioned the rationale behind excluding Aadhaar and voter identity card from its list, Bar and Bench reported. 'Include these two documents,' the legal news outlet quoted the bench as saying. 'Tomorrow you may see not only Aadhaar but out of 11 they can also be forged. That's a separate issue…Please include Aadhaar.' The revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar was announced by the Election Commission on June 24. As part of the exercise, persons whose names were not on the 2003 voter list will need to submit proof of eligibility to vote. This means that 2.9 crore out of the state's 7.8 crore voters – or about 37% of the electors – will have to submit documentary evidence. Voters born before July 1, 1987, must show proof of their date and place of birth, while those born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, must also submit documents establishing the date and place of birth of one of their parents. Those born after December 2, 2004, will need proof of date of birth for themselves and both parents. If the officers are satisfied with the details provided, the voters will be re-enrolled to a new voter list by electoral registration officers. If not, they will be removed from the voter lists. A draft roll will be published on August 1 and the final roll will be out on September 30. On July 2, eleven INDIA bloc parties told the Election Commission that the special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls risked disenfranchising more than 2.5 crore voters, as they may not be able to produce the necessary documents. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on July 6 defended the exercise, claiming that the exercise had to be carried out as no one was satisfied with the current voter rolls. 65 lakh names may be removed: EC The Election Commission on Sunday said that 91.6% electors in Bihar had submitted their enumeration forms for the special intensive revision of the state's electoral rolls by the end of the first phase of the exercise on Friday. The poll panel said that more than 7.2 crore out of the state's 7.8 crore electors had submitted the forms by the deadline, indicating 'overwhelming participation'. This would mean that the remaining 65 lakh names registered in the July 2025 list may not make it to the draft rolls to be published on August 1. The poll body also reiterated that the draft electoral roll to be published on August 1 was not the final voter list, adding that a month's time would be given to include eligible electors and exclude those ineligible.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Three-year law practice rule for judicial services exam applies prospectively: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday said its May 20 verdict fixing a minimum three-year law practice criterion to appear in entry level judicial services examination would apply prospectively and not affect the recruitment notices initiated prior to the judgment. Chief Justice B R Gavai-led bench on May 20 barred fresh law graduates from appearing in entry level judicial services examination and fixed a minimum three-year law practice criteria . Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category MCA Others CXO Data Science Data Science PGDM Healthcare Design Thinking Operations Management Leadership Finance Technology Digital Marketing Product Management Data Analytics Cybersecurity MBA others Artificial Intelligence healthcare Management Degree Public Policy Project Management Skills you'll gain: Programming Proficiency Data Handling & Analysis Cybersecurity Awareness & Skills Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning Duration: 24 Months Vellore Institute of Technology VIT Master of Computer Applications Starts on Aug 14, 2024 Get Details On Monday, the bench, also comprising Justices Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, refused to examine a plea of Naveed Bukhtiya and five others, who are practising lawyers, and have challenged the recruitment notification of May 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission as it did not mandate the three-year practice rule. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Japanese AI invention allows you to speak 68 languages instantly. The idea? Genius. Enence 2.0 Undo "You are saying that it was done only to defeat the purpose of the judgement. Was the full court of the High Court aware that the CJI is likely to pronounce the judgment on May 20," the CJI asked. The CJI clarified the verdict would apply prospectively to future judicial recruitments and does not disturb any selections that have already started. Live Events "We have clarified in the judgment that this will not be applicable to any process which has already started and will be applicable only for the next recruitment year," the CJI said in the order. The plea was then dismissed as withdrawn.
