Manhandling, house arrest of CM Omar Abdullah are an act of disrespect
Martyrs' Day has both historical and political significance. It marks the killing of 22 protestors by the Dogra monarch's police in 1931. Sheikh Abdullah, his successors, separatists and even leaders in PoK and Pakistan have invoked the moment for political ends. After the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, the holiday was scrapped by the J&K administration. The CM's insistence on visiting the cemetery where those killed in 1931 are buried can be seen as a political statement — a way to distance himself from the Centre and the L-G. But why should that invite this bizarre spectacle of punishment choreographed by the L-G's office, its strings evidently pulled by the Centre?
The UT administration's actions risk denting the people's trust framed in the heartening turnout of 63.9 per cent in last year's polls, among the highest in the region's electoral history. The Centre has long claimed that, since August 5, 2019, the erstwhile state has made strides across sectors, including in law and order and security. It has made it clear that the question of statehood is not if but when. An overzealous Raj Bhavan, and its political masters at the Centre, should not undo the hard-won gains in the UT. It is now for the L-G's office to make amends.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Supreme Court Allows Kerala Govt To Withdraw Pleas Challenging Governor's Inaction On Bills
Last Updated: On July 26 last year, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Kerala's plea alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Kerala government to withdraw its pleas against the Governor for delaying the approval of bills passed by the state assembly. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar issued the order after senior advocate KK Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, requested the withdrawal, noting the issue had become infructuous following a recent judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the withdrawal and urged the court to wait for the Supreme Court's decision on the President's reference under Article 143 of the Constitution concerning the granting of assent to bills. On April 22, the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether the recent Tamil Nadu judgment, which set timelines for granting assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. The Supreme Court bench, on April 8, acting on Tamil Nadu's plea, ruled that the reservation of 10 bills for the President's consideration was illegal and erroneous in law. For the first time, the bench set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved by the Governor. On July 26 last year, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Kerala's plea alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu, which were yet to be cleared. Noting the pleas, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of the Kerala Governor. Kerala argued that the Governor reserved seven bills for the President's consideration, which he was required to handle himself. None of the seven bills pertained to Centre-state relations. The bills had been pending for two years, effectively subverting the state legislature's functioning, the state claimed. The state government highlighted that the bills included public interest measures that remained ineffective due to the Governor's inaction. The home ministry informed Kerala that the President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills: University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The Constitution does not specify how long the President can take to grant assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred for presidential consideration. Article 361 states the President or Governor is not answerable to any court for their duties and actions performed in office. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC allows Kerala govt to withdraw pleas against guv over assent to bills
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Kerala government to withdraw its pleas against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar passed the order after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought withdrawal of the plea and said the issue had turned infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law. The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received. Kerala sought similar directions in its petition. In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature. Khan is currently Governor of Bihar. The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared. Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor. The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued. The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added. "The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said. The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent. Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court rejects plea to increase Assembly seats in Andhra, Telangana
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue a direction to the Centre to increase the number of Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh was dealing with pleas seeking implementation of the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which provided for delimitation of Assembly seats in the two successor states. In its judgment, the Justice Kant-led Bench refused to direct delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, observing that Article 170 of the Constitution allows delimitation only after the first census conducted post-2026. Delimitation under Article 170 has been frozen until the first census after 2026, as per the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendments. The apex court rejected the contention that the Centre's decision to carry out delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir, raising the number of Assembly constituencies from 83 to 90 based on the 2011 census, while excluding Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, was arbitrary and discriminatory. Highlighting the constitutional distinctions, it opined that J&K, having been reconstituted as a union territory, is regulated by parliamentary legislation and provisions of the Constitution under Chapter III of Part VI will not apply. In a related development, the Telangana Assembly, in a resolution passed in March this year, urged the Centre to increase the number of seats from 119 to 153, pursuant to the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 and as per the latest census. The state Assembly urged the Union government to introduce necessary Constitutional amendments for this purpose in order to strengthen representative democracy. Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy pointed out that the Centre, in reply to his question when he was a member of the previous Lok Sabha, had stated that the delimitation of Assembly constituencies would be done only after the 2026 census. Reddy slammed the Centre for its double standards on the issue. He said the Centre increased the number of Assembly constituencies from 83 to 90 as per the 2011 census in Jammu and Kashmir, and, in Sikkim, a resolution was passed in the Cabinet in 2018, and the process of delimitation of constituencies is currently underway.
