Ex-judge says no need to curtail Assembly tenures for simultaneous elections
NEW DELHI:
At the meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the 'One Nation One election' Bill, former Supreme Court Judge Hemant Gupta made suggestions, including the substitution of existing Article 82A with a new provision for the simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, said sources.
Article 82A of the Constitution, as proposed by the 129th Amendment Bill 2024, aims to facilitate 'One Nation, One Election'.
Justice Gupta spoke against the curtailment of assemblies, which have not completed at least three years of tenure, to synchronise their elections with that of the Lok Sabha, sources said. He instead suggested that their tenures should be extended. Gupta also conveyed his broad agreement to amend the Constitution to conduct simultaneous elections to Parliament and state assemblies, the sources said.
Congress MP and SC lawyer Abhishek Singhvi said that the draft laws proposing simultaneous elections violate the 'basic structure', the will of the people and principles of federalism, even as several other jurists cited their positive impact.
Singhvi said that the idea of federalism has evolved in the country over a period of time, citing the devolution of financial resources to the states by the Finance Commission and the gradual empowerment of local bodies.
He also appeared to suggest that simultaneous elections will homogenise the agenda, favouring the same party in the national and state elections.
Sources added that another former SC judge, B S Chauhan, also a former chairman of the Law Commission of India, called for introducing the 'doctrine of constructive no-confidence motion' so that an alternative government must be ready to step in if the incumbent is brought down through a no-confidence motion..
According to sources, DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson cited a violation of federalism by the proposed curtailment of state assemblies. 'The rights of the states have to be respected,' he said, according to sources.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC quashes discharge order of jail warder
1 2 3 Cuttack: Orissa high court quashed the discharge order of a jail warder who was removed from service on allegations of suppressing criminal case details in his attestation form, which was submitted at the time of applying for the post. The vacation bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ruled that the discharge order of P Rajesh Reddy, issued by the senior superintendent of circle jail, Berhampur, on Feb 2, 2024, "is unsustainable in law". Reddy was appointed to the post of jail warder in Daspalla sub-jail on May 29, 2023. The authorities alleged that Reddy failed to disclose his involvement in two criminal cases registered at Chamakhandi police station. While seeking the HC's intervention, Reddy pleaded that he had no knowledge of the cases and was never implicated, detained, or arrested in connection with them. He claimed to be a victim of mistaken identity and stated that his name was wrongfully linked to the cases involving a protest over land acquisition. Upon examining the facts and legal position, Justice Mohapatra, in his May 26 order, ruled that the discharge order violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and was void from the beginning. The judge further observed that the petitioner (Reddy) did not suppress any material facts within his knowledge, and subsequent investigation showed he was not involved in either case. Setting aside both the discharge order and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner's representation dated July 18, 2024, Justice Mohapatra directed the senior superintendent of circle jail (Berhampur) to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and financial benefits. "Further, it is directed that the period of discharge be treated as 'on duty' and the financial benefits accruing in favour of the petitioner for the said period be also calculated and disbursed in favour of the petitioner," Justice Mohapatra specified, adding, "Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of two months. " Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Trump's expanding use of emergency powers raises alarms among experts
Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's levelling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president, said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. The temptation is clear, said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Programme and an expert in emergency powers. What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit, Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action. The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces an unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. In analysing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Centre for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-September 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges, said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act. Trump, Yoo said, has just elevated it to another level. Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. We believe and we're right that we are in an emergency, Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies, Vance said. I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain. Vance continued, These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a path toward autocracy and suppression.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Madras High Court Orders Closure Of Liquor Shop Near School In Tamil Nadu
Chennai: In a significant judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday (2 June, 2025) ordered the closure of a state-owned liquor shop (TASMAC) located in Dindigul town. The petitioner, P. Vetrivvel, argued that the liquor shop on Trichy Road was causing a nuisance for children passing through the area on their way to school. While the petitioner claimed that the school is located within 30 metres of the shop, the government countered that the TASMAC outlet falls within corporation limits, where the minimum required distance is 50 metres. It also contended that in a commercial area, the prescribed distance restrictions would not apply. However, the court dismissed the government's arguments and observed that the presence of the TASMAC outlet could indeed cause inconvenience and nuisance to the public, particularly to children during school hours. The court also stated, "It is contradictory for a welfare government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously operate TASMAC shops on the other. This is not in consonance with constitutional ethos." The bench referred to Article 47 of the Constitution, which mandates the State to improve public health and endeavor to prohibit intoxicating drinks except for medicinal purposes. "It is a constitutional philosophy and the Directive principles insist that a welfare Government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more TASMAC shops which adversely affect public health," court emphasised. It added, "When the right to health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to the public health". Irrespective of the political divide and the ruling DMK and the opposition AIADMK have been using TASMAC as a cash cow, unmindful of the health impact on consumers. Last year, the Tamil Nadu government earned a revenue of Rs 48,344 crore from TASMAC, an increase of Rs 2,483 crore from the previous year. Amid demands for prohibition, during her tenure as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa initiated measures to reduce the number of TASMAC liquor shops. This included announcing the closure of 500 liquor outlets and reducing the business hours of state-run liquor shops. The ruling DMK too had initiated measures to downsize number of shops, but the sale or liquor is only on the rise. The government argues prohibition is practically difficult to enforce as all neighbouring states sell liquor and a prohibition in this scenario would only nurture illicit liquor. But on the ground this argument many say falls flat as the state witnessed two illicit liquor tragedies killing nearly 80 people over the last few years. The matter is now listed for reporting compliance on June 18, 2025.
