Supreme Court allows Kerala to withdraw plea against Governor, Centre resists
Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, Attorney General R. Venkataramani said the State was withdrawing on the strength of an April 8 judgment in an identical case concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor. 'This is not just a simple withdrawal,' Mr. Venkataramani addressed the court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the court to tag the Kerala petitions against its Governor with a Presidential Reference pending before a Constitution Bench.
The April 8 judgment has prescribed a maximum three-month deadline for both the President and State Governors to act on State Bills sent to them for approval or reserved for consideration under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, of the Constitution.
In May, the President had issued a reference under the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Article 143 of the Constitution), questioning the court's inherent powers under Article 142 to 'impose' timelines and prescribe the manner of conduct of Governors and the President while dealing with State Bills.
'How can a withdrawal of a petition be tagged with a Presidential Reference before a Constitution Bench?' Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal reacted. The senior lawyer said the State was entitled to withdraw its case.
'But there is a string attached to the April 8 judgment,' Mr. Venkataramani insisted. 'No strings attached... The string is cut,' Mr. Venugopal said.
In an earlier hearing on July 14, Mr. Venugopal had submitted that the April judgment had made the State's petitions infructuous.
The law officers had countered the apex court ought to wait for the Constitution Bench's respomses to questioms raised in the Presidential Reference.
However, Justice Narasimha had himself remarked that it would be 'very, very difficult' for the apex court to stop Kerala from withdrawing its petitions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
High Court Judge Seeks Anonymous Status In Supreme Court Challenge Against Removal Recommendation
In an unprecedented judicial development, Justice Yashwant Varma has filed a petition in the Supreme Court under concealed identity, challenging the conclusions of an investigative committee that advised his dismissal from the judiciary. The case appears on Monday's Supreme Court docket as "XXX vs The Union of India," with the placeholder representing Justice Varma's concealed identity. The anonymity request represents an unusual legal strategy, as such identity protection is typically reserved for sexual assault survivors, rape victims, and cases involving minors or juveniles. Justice Varma has specifically requested the apex court's permission to maintain confidentiality regarding his identity throughout the proceedings. The controversy stems from a significant cash discovery at Justice Varma's official Delhi residence following a fire incident on March 14. The judge was absent from the premises when the blaze occurred, leading to the unexpected revelation of substantial currency holdings within his quarters. Subsequently, a Supreme Court-constituted internal investigation committee determined there was "adequate evidence" supporting the allegations against the judicial officer. The panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family members maintained direct oversight of the location where the monetary cache was discovered. Following these findings, Justice Varma was administratively transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On July 18, he formally approached the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the internal inquiry report and the former Chief Justice of India's dismissal recommendation. In his legal arguments, Justice Varma contends that revealing his identity would result in "irreversible damage and harm" should his application be rejected. He emphasizes that as an active High Court judge, the internal investigation process was structured to maintain strict confidentiality protocols. The petitioner argues that public disclosure of his identity at this juncture would significantly compromise his professional dignity and personal reputation, particularly since the allegations remain unsubstantiated through formal legal proceedings. He maintains that premature exposure could prejudice any future deliberations regarding his case. Justice Varma has specifically cited previous unauthorized media disclosures of confidential inquiry documents, claiming these leaks resulted in "misleading and prejudicial reporting" against him. He argues that such unauthorized revelations have already damaged his standing within the legal community and public perception. Currently facing potential impeachment proceedings in Parliament, Justice Varma's petition challenges both the procedural integrity and substantive conclusions of the internal investigation. He alleges the inquiry process contained fundamental procedural deficiencies and relied exclusively on "speculative questions rather than formal complaints." The case represents a unique intersection of judicial accountability mechanisms and individual privacy rights within India's legal system. The Supreme Court's handling of this anonymity request could establish important precedents for future cases involving judicial officers under investigation. The petition seeks comprehensive relief including the complete dismissal of the inquiry report and the withdrawal of removal recommendations made by judicial authorities. Justice Varma's legal team argues that the investigation failed to meet established procedural standards required for such serious allegations against sitting judges. This development occurs amid broader discussions regarding transparency and accountability within India's higher judiciary, highlighting the delicate balance between public scrutiny and individual rights within the legal profession.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court to hear case against Bihar SIR today: What is the case about?
The Supreme Court of India is set to hear the pleas challenging the revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar on Monday, July 29. The plea before the top court challenges the Election Commission's decision to undertake a special intensive revision ahead of the assembly elections in the state. The plea before the top court challenges the Election Commission's decision to undertake a special intensive revision ahead of the assembly elections in the state. (Vipin Kumar/ Hindustan Times) The matter is expected to be heard by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The plea before the apex court argues that the SIR in Bihar could result in the disenfranchisement of a certain segment of Bihar's population. Also Read | Supreme Court to review Delhi's old vehicle ban today: What's the policy and why was it paused? "The petition submits that the SIR order dated June 24, 2025, if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of citizens from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution," states Association for Democratic Reforms, the NGO challenging the revision. The NGO has also questioned the exclusion of Aadhar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents during the electoral roll revision. The Election Commission of India, however, has defended the exercise. In its affidavit before the court, the poll body has justified the revision and stated that the exercise will add to the "purity of the election by weeding out ineligible persons." Also Read | Bihar electors' number may dip for 1st time since 2005 "The entitlement to vote flows from Article 326 read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act 1950 and Section 62 of the RP Act 1951, which contains certain qualifications with respect to citizenship, age, and ordinary residency. An ineligible person has no right to vote, and thus, cannot claim a violation of Articles 19 and 21 in this regard," said the polling body. What is Bihar SIR? The Election Commission of India launched the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar on June 24. This decision comes ahead of the highly anticipated assembly elections in the state. As per ECI, the objective of the exercise is to update and clean up the electoral booths through house-to-house verification by Booth-Level Officers across Bihar. The exercise has been criticised by the opposition governments at the state and central levels. In the monsoon session of the Parliament, INDIA bloc MPS have challenged the exercise, stating that the SIR is removing "genuine voters" from the electoral rolls. A month after the exercise started, the Election Commission has stated that around 35 lakh voters in the Bihar electoral rolls have been flagged as missing. As per the press release issued on Sunday, many have moved to other states, some are deceased, some have not submitted the forms, and few have refused to register.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Their info leaked online, Dehradun interfaith couple say marriage application on hold amid threats and pressure
After being in a relationship for over a decade, a couple from Dehradun decided to get married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. However, on Saturday, their application was put on hold after two witnesses pulled out, citing threats from right-wing groups and objections from the woman's father, who was threatened with a boycott by his community. According to the couple, their wedding plans unravelled because the man is a Muslim and the woman a Hindu. The details of the couple — both 28 years old — along with their photographs, were uploaded online by a Facebook user, leading to a flurry of threats, abuses, and visits to the family of the woman. The woman, who works at a clinic, said her relatives and others turned up at their door on Saturday, disparaging the family for 'letting her marry' the Muslim man. 'My parents are neither happy nor upset about my decision. They respect my choice. However, after the entire system came against us, my father was forced to raise objections with the SDM (Sub-Divisional Magistrate). The page that has gone viral on social media is not the notice put up on the board of the office of the SDM, but from our file with the officer,' she said. She alleges that some lawyers who work with the man she is set to marry, as well as some government officials, 'are facilitating this hounding and delaying our second motion'. The SDM has denied allegations that the documents were leaked from his office. The man who sought to marry her works as an advocate in Dehradun, but has not gone to work since their details went up online. Threats, allegedly from the Hindu Raksha Dal, Bajrang Dal, and other outfits, have been pouring in ever since, he claimed. 'We have known each other since class 6 and attended the same college. We are exercising our fundamental rights and getting married under the Special Marriage Act. How can their law prevail over the Constitution?' he said. The woman said she fears her job is on the line after her employer came across the social media posts. 'Though I have not been terminated, the doctor called to tell me to stay put until things blow over. I'm not sure if they will lay me off if this persists,' she said. The couple had sought protection from the High Court on Friday. The division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to comply with the Supreme Court verdict in the Lata Singh vs State of UP and Another (2006) case. The apex court had directed the administration and police across the country to ensure that when any man or woman, who is a major, undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is also a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence. They were also directed to ensure that anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence, either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons, and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. The woman claimed that police did not lodge an FIR on her complaint and told her they can only protect her in case of a 'real threat'. The couple's lawyer said that she has been ostracised for helping them get married. Meanwhile, SDM, Sadar, Har Giri, said that he was looking into the objections raised by the woman's family. Asked about the delay, he said, 'We have to look into the cause for the withdrawal by the witnesses. My responsibility is to enquire about the matter; threats to the couple do not figure in my responsibilities.' He denied allegations that the documents with details of the couple were leaked from his office. Earlier this year, another couple from Udham Singh Nagar faced a similar ordeal after their details were made public by right-wing outfits despite a High Court order directing protection from threats.
