'Follow due procedure for choosing new DGP': Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Since the Additional Advocate General (AAG) M Ajmal Khan, representing the State, informed that the process for appointing a new DGP for Tamil Nadu is ongoing, the court said it concurred with the view taken by a coordinate bench of the Principal Seat of the Madras High Court that a petition against the selection at this stage is premature.
Holding that no further interference is required in the above appointment process at this juncture, the court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an advocate over the delay in initiating the above appointment process.
A bench of justices SM Subramaniam and G Arul Murugan passed the order on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by K Yasar Arafath of Ramanathapuram, seeking to stop the government from extending the tenure of incumbent DGP Shankar Jiwal, who is set to retire on August 31, or appointing an acting DGP, without taking any steps for empanelling eligible IPS officers and forwarding their names to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for preparing a panel.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Odisha announces 21 NACs to boost infrastructure and services under urbanisation
The Mohan Majhi Government on Friday (August 15, 2025) announced the creation of 21 new Notified Area Councils (NACs) to boost infrastructure and services in line with Odisha's urbanisation needs. 'Better infrastructure and urbanisation are key components of development. Only 17% of our population lives in urban areas. Considering the State's rapid growth and people's aspirations, our government has decided to establish 21 more NACs,' Chief Minister Mohan Majhi declared during the Independence Day celebrations here. The creation of NACs was a major campaign plank ahead of the 2024 elections. The previous Naveen Patnaik Government had promised to set up NACs and municipalities to woo semi-urban voters, but the names were never announced. The Majhi Government also unveiled a welfare measure under which every family covered by the Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana will receive an additional 5 kg of rice per month for the next three months, benefiting 27 lakh families. After unfurling the Tricolour, Mr. Majhi dwelt at length on women's empowerment and safety — an issue on which the Opposition parties had been sharply critical. 'I have said on various platforms that the government follows a policy of zero tolerance towards crimes against women. Anyone committing violence against women — no matter how powerful or influential — belongs behind bars, not in civilised society,' he asserted. The CM, who also holds the Home portfolio, said the police had been given full authority to take necessary action. 'I have issued clear instructions that any neglect of women's safety will invite strict legal action. While law and order is generally under control, it must become more effective and robust,' he said. The State Government has recently faced criticism following a spate of incidents — including four girls committing self-immolation and several cases of gang rape and sexual assault — with both the Congress and Biju Janata Dal attacking its handling of women's safety.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Regulate stray dog population, shelters not the solution: RSS chief
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat (File photo) NEW DELHI: RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has said the stray dog issue in Delhi-NCR should be addressed through measures to regulate their population, rather than confining them to shelters - an approach that echoes the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules mandated under law. Bhagwat's comments come amid renewed debate over the Supreme Court's Aug 11 order directing Delhi-NCR authorities to permanently relocate all strays to shelters. "All animals have the right to live. The problem can be solved only by regulating the population of street dogs, but it cannot be resolved by putting them in shelters," said Bhagwat, a veterinary science graduate, while addressing a religious congregation at Jawaharlal Nehru Indoor Stadium in Cuttack Thursday. He added, "Sheltering all street dogs is not a practical solution. The only effective way is to implement sterilisation and vaccination, as already prescribed in law. " He referred to a cultural practice involving cattle rearing, saying that while milking a cow, some milk is taken for human use and the rest is left for the calf. "This is the art of striking a balance between man and nature. Nature should be conserved by maintaining a balance between development and the environment," he said. SC's Aug 11 order has been criticised by politicians, animal rights groups and scientists, who argue it contradicts the ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2023. On Wednesday, CJI B R Gavai withdrew the suo motu case from the earlier bench, and a larger three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath heard the matter afresh on Thursday.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Deadline for guvs, Prez will tilt power balance: Centre
The Union government has cautioned the Supreme Court that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on state bills, as mandated by the court in an April ruling, would amount to one organ of government assuming powers not vested in it, upsetting the delicate separation of powers and leading to a 'constitutional disorder'. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) In detailed written submissions filed in a presidential reference under Article 143, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the apex court cannot, even under its extraordinary powers in Article 142, amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of its framers by creating procedural mandates where none exist in the constitutional text. According to SG Mehta, while there may be 'limited issues in the operationalisation' of the assent procedure, these cannot justify 'relegating the high position of the gubernatorial office to a subservient one'. The positions of the governor and the president, he argued, are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses, he said, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and 'not necessarily judicial' interventions. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, has set aside nine days of hearings, starting from August 19 and spreading into September, to decide 14 constitutional questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. These questions stem from the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment that, for the first time, imposed binding timelines on governors and the president in relation to state bills, and held that prolonged inaction could result in 'deemed assent' under Article 142. The April verdict, delivered by justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government alleging that its governor had indefinitely delayed action on 10 important bills. It directed governors to act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-passed bills, and to decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The ruling described the governor's inaction as 'illegal' and a constitutional subversion, prompting a fierce debate on the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries. Challenging the foundations of that decision, Mehta has told the court that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governor's and the president's options upon receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' he said. Articles 200 and 201, Mehta emphasised, employ four different verbs -- 'assent', 'withhold', 'reserve' and 'return' -- each carrying distinct meaning and discretionary scope. This flexibility, he said, was 'carefully crafted' by the framers to meet exigencies that cannot always be anticipated. Any attempt to fix rigid timelines 'renders the intention of the framers nugatory' and hampers the ability of these high functionaries to safeguard constitutional compliance, democratic principles and the national interest. The submissions further contend that certain 'high-plenary' constitutional functions are inherently non-justiciable because they are textually committed to the political branches, and there are no judicially manageable standards for reviewing them. 'The assent of the governor or the president is integrally connected with the legislative process of a state legislature and attracts the constitutional bars on judicial inquiry under Articles 122 and 212,' Mehta said. Such acts, he added, fall within the category of proceedings that cannot be called into question in a court of law. The SG also cited Article 361, which grants immunity to the president and governors from court proceedings for acts done in the exercise of their official duties. The phrase 'done or purported to be done' in discharge of constitutional responsibility, Mehta said, is of 'wide import' and bars any relief that would require these functionaries to explain their decisions or act in a particular fashion. The Centre has argued that Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to do 'complete justice', is curative and procedural in nature, and cannot be used to override constitutional provisions or reallocate powers vested in other organs. 'The very width of the power brings with it a high threshold of duty to not exercise the same in such a manner that amends the text of the Constitution itself and fundamental constitutional and legal principles,' the submissions stated. Article 142, Mehta insisted, is 'not a supervening judicial power' that can run contrary to the constitutional scheme. The presidential reference, the first of its kind in several years, poses far-reaching questions: whether 'deemed assent' is constitutionally valid; whether timelines for governors and the president can be imposed through judicial orders; whether the exercise of their discretion under Articles 200 and 201 is justiciable; whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review; and whether disputes of this nature can be decided through the court's writ jurisdiction or only under Article 131, which governs disputes between the Union and states. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have already challenged the maintainability of the reference, calling it an attempt to re-litigate settled law and a disguised appeal against the April ruling. The bench will hear their preliminary objections for an hour on August 19 before moving to the merits of the Union's case. Since Independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law and public importance. While not binding on the president, such opinions have historically influenced constitutional interpretation in significant ways.
