‘Don't confront, consult with state governments'
Excerpts:
The Supreme Court has recently outlined the powers and timeline for governors to decide on bills passed by state legislatures. Your take on this?
The Constitution clearly states that if the governor finds a bill passed by the legislature inappropriate, they may return it for reconsideration. However, if the legislature passes the bill again, the governor is constitutionally bound to give assent, unless there is a clear legal issue. In such cases, the governor can refer the matter to higher authorities.
Sometimes, when there is a conflict between the interests of the State and the Centre, it may take time to seek legal opinion. In such situations, consultations with state-level legal experts and discussions with the Union government may be necessary, which can cause delays.
Such confrontational scenarios are rare and do not arise ideally. Everyone, including the governor, must act by the Constitution. Also, legal provisions allow for the bill to be referred to the President if necessary.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Punjab to save Rs 50 crore annually as consortium of banks reduce additional 0.05% interest on food credit
Punjab government will save Rs 50 crore annually as the consortium of lender banks, led by State Bank of India (SBI), has agreed to reduce 0.05 per cent additional rate of interest on food credit, winning five-month-long battle against 'unjust disparity', with the banks levying an interest rate of 8.37 per cent on the Centre, but an 8.97 per cent on the state. Punjab was eyeing a waiver on the entire additional interest of 0.60 per cent, but the five-month-long battle yielded the state a 0.05 per cent rebate, saving Rs 50 crore annually. 'It may not sound like a huge amount, but it is like winning a war against injustice. We will save Rs 50 crore. We will keep fighting, and take the matter with the Centre too,' a government officer told The Indian Express. According to officials, during the last fiscal year, ending in March 2025, the Punjab government had a CCL of about Rs 79,000 crore and paid an interest of Rs 6,000 crore. After the procurement, the FCI paid back only Rs 5,400 crore of the Rs 6,000 crore interest, thus leaving the state government to pay an additional Rs 600 crore to the banks. Similarly, in the 2023-24 fiscal, the government paid an interest of Rs 5,500 crore, while it got only Rs 5,000 crore in the recoup, they said. Neighbouring Haryana pays the MSP to the farmers from its consolidated fund, so it does not have to pay interest. 'Punjab and Madhya Pradesh borrow CCL from the banks and have to pay the interest. Haryana can do it as it procures only 100 lakh tons of foodgrains, while Punjab procures 250 lakh tons of rice and wheat every year. Even Madhya Pradesh is contributing more wheat to the central pool than Haryana,' authorities in Punjab claim. Thus, the Punjab government contended that it has to pay an interest of 8.97 per cent to the lead banks, which offer food credit loans to the Centre at an interest of only 8.37 per cent. Citing Article 293 of the Constitution, which deals with the borrowing powers of the States, Punjab stated that it should also get the same rate of interest as the Centre, official sources said. The consortium of banks, however, argued that a state guarantee cannot be compared with the Union guarantee, it is learnt. With Punjab government officials holding five meetings in five months with the consortium of banks, the SBI has now written to the state that it has agreed to reduce the interest rate by 0.05 per cent. Punjab takes an advance to procure wheat and paddy twice a year. While the advance for wheat is about Rs 35,000 crore, it is more in the case of paddy at over Rs 45,000 crore. The advance is credited into the state's account by the banks before the procurement officially starts. At the time of recoup by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the state only got the actual amount and had to pay Rs 500 crore extra to the banks. From now on, it will pay only Rs 450 crore. 'The Centre should be paying this interest also, as we procure grain for the central pool,' the officer added.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
1984 anti-Sikh riots: SC to hear Sajjan Kumar's plea against punishment on Sept 24
The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred to September 24 the hearing on the pleas filed by former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and the party's former councillor Balwan Khokhar against sentences awarded in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi deferred the matter as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for CBI, was not available. In July, 2024, the apex court asked the CBI to respond to Khokhar's plea seeking the reprieve. Khokhar's life sentence was upheld by the Delhi High Court in 2018 whereas it reversed Kumar's acquittal by a trial court in 2013, in a case related to the killings of five Sikhs in the Raj Nagar Part-I area in Palam Colony in southwest Delhi on November 1-2, 1984, apart from the setting ablaze of a gurdwara in Raj Nagar Part-II. In his plea, Khokhar said the jail authorities had rejected his plea for furlough on September 26, 2024, saying his release would invite adverse repercussions and disturb peace and tranquillity in the society, prompting unrest. He said he had moved a bail plea and had already undergone a 8.7 years' sentence but the plea was dismissed by a court on February 3, 2023. Large-scale violence and killings of persons from the Sikh community took place in the national capital following former PM Indira Gandhi's assassination by her bodyguards in 1984 and the cases stemming from the incident have seen some major twists and turns 40 years on.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Brother's grandson gets 33% share in Faridkot ruler's ₹40,000-crore estate
A Chandigarh court has granted 33.33% share of erstwhile Faridkot ruler Harinder Singh Brar's ₹40,000-crore estate to Amrinder Singh, grandson of the ruler's brother Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh. The properties include Raj Mahal in Faridkot, spread over 14 acres. (HT) Amrinder had filed an execution plea one year after the Supreme Court in September 2022 upheld an order of the Punjab and Haryana high court, distributing the royal property among legal heirs — the ruler's daughters and brother's descendants. The properties include Raj Mahal in Faridkot, spread over 14 acres; Qila Mubarak in Faridkot; Faridkot House, located on prime land on Copernicus Marg, New Delhi; a plot in Sector 17, Chandigarh; and a fort at Manimajra. Several other properties of the king are located all over the country. Faridkot's last ruler Harinder Singh Brar (HT) In its order passed earlier this week, the Chandigarh court said in the plea, the decree holder (Amrinder) had submitted that the share of Raja Harinder Singh Brar originally went to his four legal heirs — Maharani Mohinder Kaur (Brar's mother), and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Maharani Deepinder Kaur and Rajkumari Maheep Inder Kaur (daughters). On June 1, 2020, the high court held that late Manjit Inder Singh, father of Amrinder Singh, will succeed the proportionate share of late Maharani Mohinder Kaur on the basis of her registered will, dated March 29, 1990. But as Rajkumari Maheep Inder Kaur died single and without a legal will in 2001, there remained ambiguity regarding succession of her share, resulting in a dispute. Amrinder moved court, seeking proportionate increase in his share, as per the Hindu Succession Act, which was opposed by advocate Karambir Singh Nalwa, assisted by advocate Rajat Mathur, appearing for the heirs of Maharani Deepinder Kaur. After hearing the arguments, the court observed that in these circumstances, it was clear that the share of Rajkumari Maheep Inder Kaur will first go back to her father, and from there to his legal heirs — Mohinder Kaur (mother), Amrit Kaur and Deepinder Kaur — in equal share. Thus, the ruler's ₹40,000-crore estate will be redistributed equally, raising the share of Amrit Kaur, Deepinder Kaur and Amrinder Singh (legal heir of Mohinder) to one-third (33.33%) each. Tracing the dispute Crowned maharaja at the age of three in 1918, Harinder Singh Brar was the last ruler of the erstwhile princely state of Faridkot. Brar and his wife, Narinder Kaur, had three daughters and a son. However, his son died in 1981. In his will dated June 1, 1982, Brar vested the care of his property with Maharawal Khewaji Trust, with daughters Deepinder and Maheep Inder as its chairman and vice-chairman, respectively. Following Brar's death in 1989, his third daughter, Amrit Kaur, who was disinherited for marrying against his wishes, challenged the will before a Chandigarh court in 1992, questioning its authenticity. The court, in 2013, declared the will illegal, non-existent and void, and granted inheritance to Brar's daughters Amrit and Deepinder. In June 2020, the high court upheld the Chandigarh court's order, while also granting a share to the descendants of the king's brother, a decision further upheld by the Supreme Court in September 2022.
