"Are You Serious?" Supreme Court Asks Kerala In Presidential Reference Hearing
'Are you really serious...' an incredulous Chief Justice BR Gavai asked the Kerala government Tuesday as a five-judge Constitution Bench began hearing the presidential reference over the top court's April 12 order setting the President and Governors to assent to bills passed by states.
"Why can't a five-judge bench hear when the president is asking (a question)? What is wrong with that?" the Chief Justice asked ahead of a potentially landmark hearing concerning power to assent (or withhold assent) to bills passed by state governments, and the larger question of whether the Supreme Court can fix timelines for the President or a Governor to act on a bill.
The Chief Justice's incredulity was in response to former Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, referring to a 'series' of earlier verdicts by the top court that held of a presidential reference is not maintainable.
To this the Chief Justice asked, "... these judgments you are relying on... are they five judges?"
Mr Venugopal said, "No... three and two judges. The question of a five-judge bench would arise if a substantial question of law arises", and the Chief Justice shot back, "But when the President is asking, what is wrong?"
In its April 12 order, in a case related to Tamil Nadu's ruling DMK and Governor RN Ravi, the Supreme Court had sought to regulate this process and ordered that the constitutional heads follow a timeline to clear the pending bills.
It ordered, "We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs... and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received."
The judgment drew pushback, with President Droupadi Murmu raising queries to the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of such timelines. Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President posed 14 questions to the top court, seeking its opinion on the powers of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislatures.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in July fixed a time schedule to hear the Presidential reference case and decide on the questions referred to it by the President. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, had asked the Centre and states to submit their written submissions by August 12.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sreenivasan murder case: HC grants bail to four PFI members
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to four members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) who had been arraigned as accused in the murder of RSS leader Sreenivasan of Palakkad in 2022. A Division Bench of Justice V. Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar granted them bail while hearing their plea challenging the dismissal of their bail applications by the NIA Special Court, Ernakulam. Muhammed Bilal, Riyasudheen, K.P. Ansar, and K.V. Saheer, who were granted bail, had been arraigned as among the accused in the case. They had been charged with participating in a conspiracy, conducting reconnaissance along with the other accused, and playing a prominent role in facilitating the murder. They contended that, though the incident was a 'political murder', the NIA deliberately gave it a communal colour by deleting the name of the political party from the final report, replacing it with 'a Hindu leader,' and incorporating provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The NIA deposed before the court that the investigation had revealed that the PFI had a hidden agenda to overthrow democracy in India and to establish Islamic rule by 2047. The court said that the final report filed by the NIA was voluminous, consisting of 1,688 documents, 1,114 witnesses, 696 material objects, and 10 terabytes of forensic reports. Given the magnitude of the prosecution case and the stay on proceedings issued by the Supreme Court, specifically interdicting the framing of charges, there is no foreseeable possibility of the trial commencing or concluding in the near future. Out of the total 66 accused in the case, 49 had already been enlarged on bail either by the High Court or the Supreme Court, and only 12 remained in custody. The court granted bail to the four accused since the accused persons facing almost similar charges had already been released.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC dismisses bogus voting plea; BJP hits back at Congress - The Economic Times Video
Rahul Gandhi's 'Voter Adhikar Yatra' is stirring political tremors in Bihar… and the storm has been disrupting the parliament's monsoon session. Meanwhile, the alleged vote theft case in Maharashtra has taken a dramatic twist — and now, the spotlight is back on the Congress. The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition claiming bogus voting during the 2024 Assembly elections.
United News of India
34 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC directs preservation of 12th-century monuments at Mehrauli Archaeological Park
New Delhi, Aug 19 (UNI) The Supreme Court today directed that historic monuments located inside Mehrauli Archaeological Park, including the 12th-century Ashiq Allah Dargah and the Chillagah of Baba Farid, must be preserved and asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to consider taking them under its supervision for repair and renovation. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing appeals against a Delhi High Court order which had declined to protect the structures from proposed demolition by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Petitioners argued that the centuries-old sites, of cultural and religious significance were wrongly treated as encroachments. Pulling up the DDA during the hearing, Justice Nagarathna asked: 'Why do you want to demolish it in the first place?' The authority responded that it was not targeting the dargah itself but unauthorised ancillary constructions around it. The Bench, however, underlined that while no fresh construction or alteration should be permitted, the ancient monuments themselves must be preserved. 'That monument has to be preserved. We are only concerned with the monument,' Justice Nagarathna observed. Advocate Nizam Pasha, for the appellants, submitted that the structures could not be dismissed as encroachments. He cited the ASI's report, which confirmed their antiquity, including an inscription recording that the tomb of Shaikh Shahibuddin was built in 1317 AD. The report also noted that the dargah and chillagah fall within the 200-metre regulated zone of Prithviraj Chauhan's citadel under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. Highlighting their continuing cultural significance, the ASI said devotees light lamps at the Ashiq Allah Dargah for the fulfilment of wishes and visit Baba Farid's chillagah to ward off evil spirits. The court also cautioned that heritage protection cannot be misused to shield illegal constructions. Referring to its earlier directions, Justice Nagarathna said: 'You cannot have temples in the middle of the road or on footpaths. There should be no construction around this monument.' Disposing of the appeals, the Supreme Court observed: 'The ASI should take under its consideration the supervision of the monuments in question in the matter of repair, renovation.' UNI SNG SSP
