&w=3840&q=100)
SC asks if harmony between governor, state govt meets Constitution's vision
The observation of a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai came when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, referring to the Constituent Assembly debates on appointment and powers of the governor.
The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, was told by Mehta that unlike criticism made in different quarters, the post of governor is not for political asylum seekers but has certain powers and responsibility under the Constitution.
The solicitor general, who continued his submissions on the Presidential Reference which raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for governors and the president to deal with Bills passed by state assemblies, said that elaborate debates on the role and appointment of governors has taken place in the Constituent Assembly keeping in view the federal scheme of the Constitution.
On Tuesday, the top court questioned the Centre and the attorney general over the long pendency of Bills passed by assemblies with governors, underscoring the limitations of Constitutional courts in situations where legislation has been pending since 2020.
The top court has said it would be expressing its views only on the law and not on the April 8 decision in the Tamil Nadu case, fixing a timeline for governors and the president for acting on Bills passed by state legislatures.
The top court, while responding to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments on maintainability of the Presidential Reference, said it would exercise its advisory jurisdiction as it was not sitting in the appellate jurisdiction.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with Bills passed by state assemblies.
The Centre said in its written submission that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on Bills passed by a state assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to "constitutional disorder".
On April 8, the apex court while dealing with the powers of the governor with respect to Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, for the first time, prescribed that the president should decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with Bills passed by the state legislature.
Hashtags
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
Punishing process: On gender identity recognition
The Manipur High Court's order to the State to issue fresh academic certificates to Beoncy Laishram is at once a matter of individual justice and a larger commentary on the state of transgender rights. What should have been a simple administrative correction became a legal battle, not because the law lacks provisions but because its implementation remains frustrated by inertia and bureaucratic rigidity. In NALSA vs Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the right to self-identify gender and ordered the state to treat transpersons as socially and educationally backward classes entitled to welfare measures. The principle was codified in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, which also obligated authorities to recognise a person's self-identified gender and issue official documents. Together with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, transpersons are thus entitled to having their affirmed identity seamlessly recognised in all institutional records. Yet, their lived reality is very different. Despite the law being clear on self-identification, bureaucratic setups often do not act unless compelled by higher authorities. In Dr. Laishram's case, her university refused to update her educational records citing procedural hurdles — symptomatic of a systemic malaise. Administrators routinely defer to the most restrictive reading of procedure rather than the spirit of the law. In the present matter, the university and education boards insisted that corrections must begin with the earliest certificate, qualifying recognition on a cascading set of bureaucratic approvals. Where the law envisages gender as a matter of self-determination for transgender individuals, many officials remain wedded to the binary markers assigned at birth, and the mismatch translates into a stunted application of a simple idea. The insistence on sequential corrections or elaborate justifications is essentially a refusal to accept that gender identity is not derived from paperwork. Dr. Laishram's struggle also shows how institutional reluctance to operationalise this principle forces transpersons into prolonged legal contests over what should be routine matters. Such episodes reveal a troubling truth: transpersons, navigating stigma and discrimination, are forced to expend disproportionate time and resources to access rights that are legally theirs. The High Court judgment is undoubtedly positive: it also sets a precedent that may help other transpersons and signals to administrators that procedural rigidity cannot override constitutional and statutory guarantees. Bridging the gap between legal rights and their application will require both institutional reform and cultural change within the bureaucracy that draw from an understanding of gender as lived reality.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
House panel endorses govt-funded quotas for SCs, STs, OBCs in pvt higher education institutions
Article 15 (5) empowers the state to make special provisions for the educational advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs, in private unaided educational institutions (excluding minority institutions). The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports, chaired by Congress Rajya Sabha MP Digvijay Singh, tabled its 370th report Wednesday on the implementation of Article 15(5) of the Constitution regarding special provisions for reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in educational institutions, including private ones. New Delhi: Noting the significantly low OBC admissions and 'abysmally low' SC and ST enrollments in private universities in India, a parliamentary panel has recommended implementing reservations in private higher education institutions for marginalised students, with full financial support from the government to ensure equal access to quality education. Under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, and as enabled by Articles 15(4) and 15(5) of the Constitution, central educational institutions in India provide 15 percent reservation for SCs, 7.5 percent for STs, 27 percent for OBCs, and 10 percent for EWS. However, private educational institutions are not legally required to implement reservation policies, as no statute mandates them to do so. According to the report, there is a significant gap between official data and actual enrollment figures. The committee noted that, as per data from the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, private HEIs reportedly have 40 percent OBC, 14.9 percent SC, and 5 percent ST students. However, data provided by the private universities themselves reflect much lower OBC admissions and 'abysmally low' SC and ST enrollments. The report highlights lower admissions in OBC, SC and ST categories in esteemed private universities including Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), OP Jindal Global and Shiv Nadar University. It states that during the 2024-25 academic year at Birla Institute of Technology and Science, out of 5,137 students, approximately 514 (10 percent) are OBC, 29 (0.5 percent) are SC, and 4 (0.08 percent) are ST, with some students not declaring their category. Similarly, at O.P. Jindal Global University, out of 3,181 students, only 28 SC and 29 ST students are enrolled, each constituting less than 1 percent. At Shiv Nadar University, among 3,359 students, SCs number 48 (1.5 percent) and STs 29 (about 0.5 percent). 'The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Department of Higher education implement reservation quotas in educational institutions, including private ones, in proportion to the population of SCs, STs, and OBCs,' the report stated. It further urged the establishment of a central oversight mechanism—such as the UGC, National Commission for Backward Classes, and SC/ST Commissions—to monitor implementation of Article 15(5) of the Constitution ensuring that institutions submit annual admission data to ensure compliance. Also Read: Indian universities must not mimic Ivy Leagues. Global rankings won't build Viksit Bharat Divide in higher education According to government data cited by the parliamentary panel, India has 685 government-managed universities (including 240 central and 445 state institutions) and 473 private unaided universities. Among the country's 45,473 colleges, only 21.5 percent are government-run, 13.2 percent are privately aided, and a majority—65.3 percent—are private unaided institutions. The Standing Committee noted a growing divide in Indian higher education between a small number of well-resourced private and select government institutions, and the majority of higher education institutions that struggle to match their quality. 'The Committee strongly emphasizes that education must be a key instrument of attaining social justice in this country, and noted that the current absence of reservations in private HEIs may be an impediment to the same,' the report stated. To address this imbalance, the committee recommended that Article 15(5) of the Constitution be implemented in full through parliamentary legislation. The committee specifically proposes reserving 27 percent of seats for OBCs, 15 percent for SCs, and 7.5 percent for STs in private higher educational institutions. It also noted that the high fees charged by private universities make education inaccessible for marginalized students and urged the State to legislate financial and structural support to ensure effective implementation of these reservations. The committee also recommended that the department take steps to improve the quality of data collected on student composition in both private and public HEIs. 'It is important for HEIs and the department to understand the social composition of the student body as well as the prospective pool of applicants. The current system of making caste declaration optional may result in a caste-blindness of the admissions process,' the report stated. Also Read: The history of Indian caste censuses is the history of Indian statecraft Financial support from govt The committee stated that any introduction of reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private higher educational institutions must be fully funded by the government. It recommended adopting a model similar to the 25 percent quota under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act, where private schools are reimbursed by the government for admitting students from disadvantaged backgrounds, in the higher education institutions as well. Observing that expanding reservation will require increasing seats and infrastructure like classrooms, hostels, faculty, the committee recommended that central and state governments should allocate dedicated funds for private HEIs to increase seats, build infrastructure, and hire faculty in institutions implementing reservations. 'The Central and state government should also supplement resources through Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in education. The Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, through Higher Education Funding Agency (HEFA) should provide low-interest loans to HEIs/ Universities for infrastructure expansion, ensuring no reduction in general category seats to avoid reducing general category opportunities,' the report stated. The Committee recommends that the department of higher education develop certain model programmes (bridge courses, free coaching for entrance exams, etc.) that private HEIs can adopt to support effective implementation of Article 15(5). 'Similarly, the Department may also provide scholarships which can bear the burden of living costs in hostels to students taking admission through quotas in private HEIs,' the report added. Reacting to the report, Congress general secretary in charge of communications Jairam Ramesh posted on social media platform X, 'The legitimate demand of SC, ST, and OBC communities for reservations in private higher education institutions can no longer be ignored.' He added that the party's 2024 Nyay Patra had pledged to legislate the implementation of Article 15(5), and the Committee's report has given fresh momentum to this commitment. Also Read: India's higher education system needs to level up. A third pillar of experts can help
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Mamata Banerjee calls 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill a 'threat to Indian democracy'
West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee slammed the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, terming the proposed legislation, which seeks to remove any central or state minister who faces allegations of corruption or serious offences and has been detained for at least 30 days, a step towards 'more than a super-Emergency' and 'nothing short of a Hitlerian assault on the very soul of Indian democracy'.Union home minister Amit Shah introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday amid vociferous opposition protest.'I condemn it as a step towards something that is more than a super-Emergency, a step to end the democratic era of India forever. This draconian step comes as a death knell for democracy and federalism in India… To suppress the voting rights of the Indian citizens in the name of special intensive revision (of electoral rolls in Bihar), this is another super-draconian step by the Centre now,' Banerjee said in a post on said the intent of the bill is to consolidate a system of 'one man-one-party-one government'. 'What we are witnessing is unprecedented – the Bill is nothing short of a Hitlerian assault on the very soul of Indian democracy,' Banerjee said on X. 'The bill strikes at the basic structure of the Constitution – federalism, separation of powers, and judicial review – principles that even Parliament cannot override. If allowed to pass, it will be a death warrant for constitutional governance in India. We must resist this dangerous overreach.' The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) leader further said, 'The bill seeks to empower the Union to intrude upon the mandate of the people, handing sweeping powers to unelected authorities (ED, CBI - whom the Supreme Court has described as 'caged parrots') to interfere in the functioning of elected state governments. It is a step to empower the Prime Minister and the Union home minister in a sinister manner at the expense of the basic principles of our Constitution.'Banerjee alleged that the bill 'seeks to strip the judiciary of its constitutional role- to take away the power of courts to adjudicate on matters that lie at the very heart of justice and federal balance', and that by 'vesting such powers in partisan hands, the bill mutilates democracy'.Meanwhile, the AITC leader in the Lok Sabha Abhishek Banerjee said, 'We were very vocal about this bill in the House today. We were the only opposition party which went to the well to protest. The home minister had to bring in marshals and introduce the bill… The Union home minister had to sit in the fourth row of the Lok Sabha being guarded by 12-15 marshals. This speaks volumes of the BJP's '56-inch' or 'Vishwaguru' narrative.''They wanted to change the Constitution after coming to power,' he said, adding that the AITC will take up the matter of 'assault on the women MPs by BJP MPs in Parliament' with the Lok Sabha speaker.
