SC's five-judge bench to consider Presidential reference on timeline for assent to state bills on July 22
According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.
Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon".
The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, 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 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 governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Not a culmination, but a beginning': Kamal Haasan pens a thoughtful note on making Parliament debut
Superstar Kamal Haasan was sworn in as a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament on Friday. The Tamil actor and politician took his oath in Tamil to resounding thumps on the table by fellow Parliamentarians. The 'Thug Life' actor expressed his happiness on his significant political milestone. The 69-year-old Makkal Needhi Maiam (MNM) founder and actor-turned-politician, talking to media persons outside the parliament earlier, said, 'I am very proud and honoured.' Kamal Haasan's election to the Upper House marks a significant milestone in his political journey, as he assumes a national legislative role for the first time. 'Today, as I rose to take the affirmation as a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha, I did so with a heart full of humility and a conscience weighed by responsibility. I have sworn to uphold the Constitution of India – not as a ritual of formality, but as a solemn promise to serve its spirit with fidelity, courage, and conscience,' Haasan wrote later in a message on X. Haasan was nominated with the support of the ruling DMK-led alliance, which had promised him a Rajya Sabha seat in return for MNM's support during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. 'This moment is not mine alone. I share it with my people, whose voices I carry into the chambers of power. I share it with the soil of Tamil Nadu that has nurtured me – a land that has produced poets and revolutionaries, thinkers and reformers, and above all, citizens who believe deeply in justice, dignity, and self-respect,' Haasan said in the three-page message. Haasan filed his nomination on June 6 at the Tamil Nadu Secretariat in the presence of Chief Minister MK Stalin, Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin, among other political leaders. On June 12, Haasan, who is the president of MNM, and five others were elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Tamil Nadu. The five others elected are DMK's Poet Salma (A Rokkaiah Malik), SR Sivalingam, P Wilson (who enters his second term), and AIADMK's IS Inbadurai and Dhanapal. Haasan promised that he would strive to be the voice of Tamil Nadu in Delhi — clear, compassionate, and committed —and that he would speak not for one community but for the common good. This moment is not mine alone. I share it with my people, whose voices I carry into the chambers of power. "With reverence for the Constitution, with faith in democracy, and with love for my people, I begin this chapter not as a culmination, but as a beginning,' he said. Key Takeaways Kamal Haasan emphasizes the importance of representing the voices of Tamil Nadu in Parliament. His election signifies a broader political strategy and alliance-building in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. Haasan's approach combines reverence for the Constitution with a commitment to serve the common good.
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Govt. silent on reforms to address judicial misconduct
At a time when the government is seeking to remove Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma after burnt currency notes were found at his official residence in Delhi this March, the Law Minister, while speaking in Parliament, did not specify the government's stance on legislative reforms regarding the Supreme Court's in-house procedure to address judicial misconduct. Responding to a question in Lok Sabha whether reforms were required in the top court's procedure, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal only described the existing rules and regulations for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and did not speak on the need for reforms. 'Article 124 (4) provides that a judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity,' he said. 'For Judges of the High Court, Article 217(1)(b) stipulates that 'A Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided for in clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court,' the Minister said in a written reply in the House. The Minister described the procedure adopted by Parliament for the removal of a judge but skipped the reply to a question about steps being taken on reforms, and if there has been any consultation with experts on this. Opposition parties and civil rights groups have, in the past, raised the demand for judicial accountability. Apart from Justice Varma's case, questions on judicial integrity were raised by the Opposition when Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, last December, made veiled attacks on the Muslim community while speaking about Uniform Civil Code at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. The judge had said that the country would run as per the wishes of the 'majority'. The Opposition, across party lines, had objected to the speech and had demanded his removal. In the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament, CPI(M) MP John Brittas said that the integrity and transparency of the judiciary needed to be maintained. 'We are for the removal of Justice Varma. We have already expressed our desire to be part of that process,' he said.
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday said procedure was only a "handmaiden and not a mistress of justice' and held courts can allow amendment in criminal complaints if changes do not cause any prejudice to the accused in trial. Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further observed procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it. The top court's verdict reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities must not override the course of justice and allowed an amendment in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When a charge is altered, the court said, if there is no prejudice to the accused, the trial can proceed. 'Further, if it is likely to prejudice, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial to such a period. Section 217 of the CrPC grants liberty to the prosecutor and the accused to recall witnesses when charges are altered under the conditions prescribed therein. The test of 'prejudice to the accused' is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind,' it added. The court found it appropriate to observe that amendments to complaints were "not alien" to the Code of Criminal Procedure . 'Section 216 of the CrPC deals with the power of court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered….,' the bench said. The case at hand stemmed from a complaint that three cheques issued by the respondents, amounting to ₹14 lakh, dishonoured. The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of 'Desi Ghee '. However, the complainant later sought to amend the complaint to correct a purported typographical error stating that the goods sold were actually 'milk.' While the trial court allowed the amendment in September 2023, holding no prejudice would be caused as the cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed its decision. The high court observed the amendment changed the nature of the complaint and potentially had tax implications under the GST regime. Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court held the amendment was a 'curable irregularity' and that it did not cause any prejudice to the accused. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
