logo
Supreme Court To Hear President vs Kerala, Tamil Nadu Over Assent For Bills

Supreme Court To Hear President vs Kerala, Tamil Nadu Over Assent For Bills

NDTV3 days ago
New Delhi:
The issue of gubernatorial and presidential assent to state bills came up in the Supreme Court Tuesday morning after the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments opposed a presidential reference to the court's April verdict, which said governors could not reserve bills for the president if they had withheld consent in the first instance, and that the president must sign off on all bills within three months.
The court overruled the states' objections but promised a full hearing. A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai then directed the states and the centre to file replies within a week.
The next hearing will likely be in August.
Kerala's ruling Left Democratic Front and Tamil Nadu's Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam both opposed any hearing on President Droupadi Murmu 's letter to the Supreme Court in May.
Their challenges were also shot down - although in comments that have raised eyebrows - by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the centre. Mr Mehta declared, "... repeated requests (referring to the states' challenges) are only successful if a man is proposing to a girl."
There were 14 questions in Ms Murmu's letter, which was sent under Article 143 of the Constitution that allows the President to ask for the opinion and advice of the Supreme Court.
These included a pointed query about the judiciary's authority to prescribe deadlines for governors and the president to sign off on bills passed by state governments, and another about the judiciary possible interfering in a governor's exercise of constitutional discretion.
Ms Murmu's letter drew a strong response from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, who said he "strongly condemns... attempts to subvert the Constitutional position settled (by the Supreme Court)".
The DMK boss - who faces a critical election next year, for which the BJP has allied with arch-rivals the AIADMK - also called it a "desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected state governments".
Earlier, in what was a brief hearing, senior advocates KK Venugopal and P Wilson, appearing for Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, questioned the viability of the presidential reference.
"It will directly affect us..." Mr Wilson said, possibly in reference to 10 bills the Tamil Nadu government signed into law in April. This was after the Supreme Court ruled Governor RN Ravi had overstepped his authority by denying assent despite each having been passed twice.
A bench of Justice SB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said, "... these bills shall be deemed to be cleared from the date it was re-presented". That order has also been questioned by the President, who asked if "... it is a law in force without the assent of the governor..."
To Mr Wilson's comment, the Chief Justice replied, "It will affect the whole country."
In April the Supreme Court had set deadlines for the governor and president to sign off bills passed by a state government. This was in response to controversial face-offs between the governors of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab and the non-BJP governments in each state.
Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan used a special power given to the Supreme Court to settle the issue, and did so by calling Governor Ravi's withholding assent "arbitrary" and "illegal" and setting all governors and the president a tight deadline to review and sign off on state bills.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Shivakumar vows to resume Mahadayiwork, dares Goa govt to block it
Shivakumar vows to resume Mahadayiwork, dares Goa govt to block it

Time of India

time41 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Shivakumar vows to resume Mahadayiwork, dares Goa govt to block it

Bengaluru: Deputy CM DK Shivakumar on Thursday announced that Karnataka would resume the long-stalled Kalasa-Banduri project, brushing aside objections from both the Goa govt and the Centre. "We will withdraw our application from the Supreme Court and resume the work. I will see who stops it," Shivakumar said, responding to Goa chief minister Pramod Sawant's claim that the Centre would not issue environmental clearance for the project. He also asserted Karnataka's right over its share of Mahadayi waters and said tenders had already been floated based on the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal's verdict. The Kalasa-Banduri project, which involves the construction of two dams across the Kalasa and Banduri tributaries of the Mahadayi river and a canal to carry water to the Malaprabha reservoir, has remained in limbo since 2006-07. The project was first launched during the JD(S)-BJP coalition regime under then CM BS Yeddyurappa and water resources minister KS Eshwarappa, but work was halted after Goa moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Swelling and internal bleeding in the brain, help this baby Donate For Health Donate Now Undo You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Shivakumar accused Sawant of disregarding the federal system and also took aim at Karnataka's MPs for remaining silent. "It is wrong on the part of the state MPs not to raise their voice on this issue. We can't sell our state just for one MP from Goa. I urge the MPs from the state to put pressure on the Centre," he said. "This is a matter of self-respect for the state. I will meet all the MPs from the state and seek their support. " Clarifying that his criticism was aimed at the Goa govt and not the Centre, he said: "The union jal shakti minister is impartial on the matter, he won't do politics on this. I have met him four or five times. The union environment minister will also not do politics on this issue. Both of them support development works. The issue is with Goa." He further stated that a delegation of Karnataka MPs would soon be formed to meet prime minister Narendra Modi and central ministers. Chief minister Siddaramaiah also launched a scathing attack on the Centre, accusing it of sabotaging the project. "Despite the 2018 tribunal verdict allocating 13.4 tmcft of water to us, the Centre, hand in glove with Goa's BJP govt, is blocking the implementation of our rightful project. This project will quench the thirst of over 40 lakh people in Belagavi, Dharwad, Gadag, Bagalkot and nearby regions. It is a lifeline, not a bargaining chip. We will fight legally, politically, and morally until Karnataka gets its rightful share," he wrote on X. —— Photo caption: P4-Mahadayi Caught in dispute: The Kalasa-Banduri project, which involves the construction of two dams and a canal, has remained in limbo since 2006-07

SC tears into HC judge for bail to actor Darshan
SC tears into HC judge for bail to actor Darshan

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

SC tears into HC judge for bail to actor Darshan

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday raised an objection to Karnataka high court order granting bail to actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case and said that the reasoning given by HC to justify relief is troubling it. Reserving the order on Karnataka govt plea for cancellation of bail, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed, "In a lighter vein, don't you think the high court has basically dictated an order acquittal of all seven? There are ways and ways of assigning reasons. The manner in which the Karnataka high court has dictated the order, very sorry to say, but does the high court dictate the same type of orders in all bail applications? What is troubling us is the approach of the high court! Look at the manner in which bail application is dealt. ..That is the understanding of the learned judge? And that too from the high court? We can understand a session judge committing such mistakes. A high court judge committing such a mistake?" The bench said the way in which the bail order was dictated by Karnataka high court, it seemed the court had handed over a judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused persons which was not required. Darshan, along with other accused, are charged with the murder of Renukaswamy, who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by the actor's accomplices after he apparently sent obscene messages to Pavithra Gowda, a friend of Darshan. Renukaswamy's body was found in a drain on June 9. As per the police, Darshan paid Rs 50 lakh to four men involved in the planning and execution of the gruesome crime, including arranging for Renukaswamy to be brought to Bengaluru.

‘No move to drop secular, socialist from Preamble': Govt amid calls to revisit inclusion of terms
‘No move to drop secular, socialist from Preamble': Govt amid calls to revisit inclusion of terms

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

‘No move to drop secular, socialist from Preamble': Govt amid calls to revisit inclusion of terms

The government has not initiated any formal legal or constitutional process to remove the words 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Preamble of the Constitution, the Union law and justice ministry informed Parliament on Thursday. Union Minister Meghwal acknowledged the 2024 Supreme Court observation that socialism reflects India's welfare state status and secularism forms part of the Constitution's basic structure. Responding to a question by Rajya Sabha MP Ramji Lal Suman, Union minister of state (independent charge) for law and justice Arjun Ram Meghwal said that no formal decision or proposal has been made on the matter. Meghwal acknowledged the 2024 Supreme Court observation that socialism reflects India's welfare state status and secularism forms part of the Constitution's basic structure. He underlined the difference between public discourse and official policy, stating, 'Regarding the atmosphere created by office bearers of some social organisations, it is possible that certain groups are expressing opinions or advocating for reconsideration of these words… but this does not necessarily reflect the official stance or actions of the government.' The remarks come amid ongoing calls by some public figures and BJP leaders to revisit the inclusion of the two terms, added during the Emergency in 1976. Former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar called the insertion a 'betrayal' of the Constitution's original vision. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma echoed similar sentiment. And Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said a debate should be held on the relevance of the two terms. 'During the Emergency, the country had no functioning Parliament, no rights, no judiciary and yet these two words were added,' he said at an event in Delhi on June 26. Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan also criticised the terms as not being a reflection of India's cultural values. The remarks sparked sharp political pushback. 'The Constitution irks them because it speaks of equality, secularism and justice,' Rahul Gandhi said on X. Jairam Ramesh accused the BJP and RSS of pushing for a new Constitution, despite electoral rejection of such ideas. 'The RSS and BJP have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution. This was (Prime Minister Narendra) Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The people decisively rejected this cry... yet demands for changing the basic structure of the Constitution continue,' he said. Meghwal concluded in his response that any amendment to the Preamble would require broad consensus, and that no such process is currently underway. 'Any discussions regarding amendments to the preamble would require thorough deliberation and broad consensus, but as of now, the government has not initiated any formal process to change these provisions.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store