Telangana High Court Orders Local Body Elections Within Three Months
The verdict was delivered by Justice T. Madhavi Devi, following the conclusion of arguments on six petitions concerning the local body elections, which were reserved for judgement on Monday.
The court's decision underscores the urgency of facilitating democratic processes at the grassroots level. This ruling prompts the state authorities to prepare for the upcoming elections, aiming to enhance local governance and representation in the region.
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
Vice-Presidential Polls: Oppn fields former SC judge Sudarshan Reddy
New Delhi: The Opposition on Tuesday named former Supreme Court judge Justice B Sudarshan Reddy as its 'joint candidate' for the September 9 Vice-Presidential elections, which it termed an 'ideological battle' against the BJP-led NDA which has nominated Maharashtra Governor CP Radhakrishnan. If the BJP intended to put the DMK in a spot by choosing a Tamil as the NDA candidate, a section in the Opposition believes they have returned fire by choosing a Telugu that could create a political dilemma for N Chandrababu Naidu-led TDP and K Chandrasekhar Rao-led BRS. AAP, which has left the INDIA bloc, has also pledged its support to Justice Reddy, as the INDIA leaders maintained he is a 'joint Opposition candidate and not just the bloc's'. Sources said Arvind Kejriwal was briefed by Trinamool Congress' Derek O'Brien about the consensus reached over the candidate following which the AAP chief gave his party's green signal. The name was given the final stamp at a meeting of INDIA bloc leaders at Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's official residence here, which was preceded by a meeting on Monday evening and late night consultations among top leaders. Sources said they were pitching the battle as 'Constitution and Idea of India versus RSS-BJP'. The announcement also caps two days of intense consultations during which names of former ISRO scientist Mylswamy Annadurai, Mahatma Gandhi's great grandson Tushar Gandhi and former Rajya Sabha MP Bhalchandra Mungekar among others also cropped up. Flanked by INDIA leaders, Kharge told a press conference, 'This Vice-Presidential contest is an ideological battle. All Opposition parties have nominated Justice B Sudarshan Reddy as their joint Reddy is one of India's most distinguished and progressive jurists.' 'He has been a consistent and courageous champion of social, economic and political justice. He reflects, fully, the values that shaped our country's freedom movement so profoundly, and the values on which our country's Constitution and democracy have been anchored. All these values are under assault and therefore, our collective and determined resolve to fight this election,' Kharge said.
United News of India
4 hours ago
- United News of India
SC passes no final order, asks AG how to handle Bills kept pending by Governor
New Delhi, Aug 19 (UNI) The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court, hearing the Presidential Reference on assent to Bills, did not pass any final or interim order today. The Bench instead asked the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, to assist on the lawful options available when a Governor keeps Bills pending for years. A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, is hearing the Presidential Reference on questions relating to grant of assent to Bills. The Bench noted that the two-judge verdict had invoked Article 142 to declare assent to 10 Tamil Nadu Bills that had been pending since 2020, citing the Governor's prolonged inaction. Justice Surya Kant pointed to paragraphs 431–433 of the judgment, where the earlier Bench recorded the Governor's repeated delays and failure to follow constitutional procedure. Admitting the factual correctness of the delays, Attorney General Venkataramani maintained that even in such undesirable circumstances, the Court could not step into the Governor's shoes. 'Can the Court invoke Article 142 to declare deemed assent? That has to be tested,' he said, cautioning that the ruling had created 'disquieting features' and could set a precedent extending beyond the Tamil Nadu case. Justice Narasimha noted that the earlier judgment appeared to be tailored to an 'extraordinary fact situation' rather than laying down a general principle. 'It was not in the form of a precedent, it was to handle a situation,' he observed. The Attorney General, however, warned that once recognised, the doctrine of 'deemed assent' could be applied in future cases: 'The moment the Court enters into this arena, there will be mind-boggling facts which the Court may have to confront.' The Court said, no change in law or directions issued on 'deemed assent'. The Court sought assistance from the Attorney General on the constitutionally permissible recourse in cases of prolonged delay by a Governor. The Bench noted the earlier Tamil Nadu Governor's judgment may have addressed an 'egregious situation,' but questioned whether Article 142 can be used to declare deemed assent. Justice Surya Kant referred to the earlier judgment noting Bills from 2020 were pending; the AG confirmed this was factually correct and argued that courts cannot step into the Governor's role, even in undesirable situations. The Court listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow (Wednesday, August 20). UNI SNG SS
India Today
5 hours ago
- India Today
Advisory opinions can't overrule in Presidential assent reference: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, hearing a Presidential Reference on the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to Bills, clarified on Tuesday that advisory opinions issued under Article 143 cannot overrule existing judgments.A Constitution Bench,includingJustices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, AS Chandurkar, and led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai highlighted the limitations of the court's advisory jurisdiction on Day 1 of the OPINIONS NOT PRECEDENTS: COURTThe CJI emphasised that the court is not assessing the correctness of any specific verdict, including the Tamil Nadu judgment, but is only offering its view on questions of law. Justice Kant stated, 'One thing is clear. We are in advisory jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction. We will answer if there is a question of law arisen and answer it.'Justice Narsimha added, 'This is only an opinion. When you refer an opinion of court and ask to take a different decision, the idea always is this cannot be a precedent.'The bench categorically held: 'You cannot ask this court to decide on conflicting judgments in a reference. For that there are larger benches. In advisory jurisdiction, the court may opine that a judgment does not lay down the correct law, but it cannot overrule.'Referring to the Tamil Nadu judgment, Justice Narsimha remarked that the case involved an egregious circumstance and did not set a legislative precedent. The bench also questioned what constitutional recourse existed in instances where a Governor fails to act in deference to constitutional INTENDED NO TIMELINE FOR ASSENT: SOLICITOR GENERALSolicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the Constitution was designed to preserve federal balance, even though 'there may be instances of errant Governors.'He pointed out that the Government of India Act, 1915 included timelines for assent, but these were consciously removed by the Constituent Assembly.'The Governor-General then was equivalent to the President now. That provision carried a timeline. But that timeline was consciously removed by the Constituent Assembly,' he said, adding that Dr B R Ambedkar replaced 'six weeks' with 'as soon as possible' in what became Article argued that the removal of a fixed timeline reflected the framers' confidence that constitutional functionaries would act in 'right earnest.'He further noted the constitutional importance of the issue, stating, 'There have only been 15 Presidential References so far. The highest head of the executive is now seeking your Lordships' guidance because there are different benches, different opinions, and constitutional problems.'JUDICIARY CANNOT REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION: ATTORNEY GENERALadvertisementAttorney General R Venkataramani cautioned the court against entering the legislative domain. Responding to a question from the CJI, he said, 'It is a matter of textual amendment to the Constitution. Can the court go to the extent of taking pen and paper to rewrite the Constitution?'On the use of Article 142, he argued that the court's powers under it cannot be used to grant assent or issue directions that conflict with constitutional or statutory provisions. He emphasised that Article 142 is meant for doing 'complete justice' in matters properly before the court, and does not authorise the court to step into the legislative Question 1 of the reference, the AG submitted that Article 200 offers the Governor four distinct courses of action: assent, withhold assent, reserve the Bill for the President, or return it. He said this view was supported by States like Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, and Meghalaya and was in contrast to the Tamil Nadu judgment, which recognised only three further contended that the Governor is not bound entirely by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 200. The discretion, he said, extends beyond repugnancy under Article 254(2) or issues affecting High Court powers, and may apply where constitutional doubt Question 2, the AG pointed out that withholding assent would rarely be recommended by the Council of Ministers, as the Bill would have originated with their support. Thus, such a decision necessarily involves the Governor's independent Questions 10 and 13, he reiterated that Article 142 powers are subject to constitutional and statutory limits and cannot be used to grant relief that contradicts existing matter remains ongoing.- Ends
