&w=3840&q=100)
SC allows Kerala govt to withdraw pleas against guv over assent to bills
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar passed the order after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought withdrawal of the plea and said the issue had turned infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills.
On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas.
Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law.
The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received.
Kerala sought similar directions in its petition.
In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature.
Khan is currently Governor of Bihar.
The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared.
Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor.
The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President.
Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued.
The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added.
"The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said.
The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.
The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.
Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
4 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order blocking new OBC list in West Bengal
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Calcutta High Court order blocking the implementation of a West Bengal government notification classifying 140 communities as Other Backward Classes, verbally observing that it seemed to be 'prima facie erroneous', Live Law reported. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria expressed surprise at the High Court's reasoning that only the legislature could approve the OBC list, and not the executive. 'How can the High Court stay like this?' Live Law quoted the Supreme Court as saying. 'Reservation is part of the executive functions. This is the settled law... Executive instructions are enough for providing reservations and legislation is not necessary.' The matter pertains to a notification issued by the West Bengal government earlier in June that added 76 sub-castes to the OBC category, taking the total number of communities in the grouping to 140. Out of these, 80 communities are from among Muslims, while 60 are non-Muslims, The Indian Express reported. Muslims comprise 57.1% of the population included in the OBC category. The state government's previous list of OBCs had 113 sub-groups, of which 77 were Muslims and 36 non-Muslims. However, the High Court had in May 2024 struck down the list, and had reduced OBC reservations from 17% to 7%. The new list would allow the state government to restore OBC reservations to 17%. The High Court's May 2024 decision was expected to affect nearly five lakh certificates. The state government's challenge to the verdict was also pending before the Supreme Court. On June 17, the High Court stayed the implementation of the new list and told the state government not to take steps based on it till July 31, when the case will be heard next. At the hearing on Monday, Gavai also disagreed with the High Court's observation that the state should have placed the reports and bills before the legislature for amendments and introductions to the 2012 Act's schedule. Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the respondents, told the bench that the list had to be approved by the legislature as per the law enacted by the state government. Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the other respondents, also claimed that the list had been prepared without any data, Live Law reported. Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, said the new list was based on a fresh survey and report by the State Backward Classes Commission. Sibal also argued that even the High Court had not held that the commission failed to conduct the exercise. Gavai then told the respondents that the bench could ask the High Court to form a different bench to hear the matter. 'If you are willing, we will direct the HC to hear the matter in stipulated timeline, till then status quo will maintain,' Live Law quoted the Supreme Court said. 'We will ask the chief justice to constitute another bench to hear.'
NDTV
8 minutes ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Relief For Mamata Banerjee On High Court's "Suprising" OBC Order
New Delhi: The Calcutta High Court interim stay on notifications issued by the West Bengal government - with regard to reservations for Other Backward Classes, or OBCs - was "surprising" and "prima facie erroneous", the Supreme Court said Monday morning. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court order and issued a notice on Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's government's plea, and said it would hear the matter after two weeks. "This is surprising. We will issue notice in this. How can the High Court order a stay? Reservation is a part of the functions of the Executive. Since Indira Sawhney (referring to the landmark 1992 case that focused on reservations for OBCs) the Supreme Court has said this." At first the bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai considered placing this hearing before a different bench of the Calcutta High Court, but ultimately listed matter after two weeks. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Bengal government, mentioned this matter before Chief Justice Gavai. "A writ petition was filed... challenging the new list, saying we have to legislate it, which is contrary to all judgements," he said. To this the Chief Justice stressed that "right from (the Indira Sawhney judgement) the position is that the Executive can do (this)". Mr Sibal also asked for a contempt petition that had been filed in the High Court be stayed. "Let the matter get listed," the Chief Justice said. Mamata Banerjee's government had moved the top court against the High Court's order last month staying the new list of OBCs. A division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, in an interim stay till July 31, directed that executive notifications between May 8 and June 13 with regard to OBC categories made by the state government will not be given effect to till that date. All the parties in the matter were directed by the court to file their affidavits in the meantime on their contentions with regard to the challenge over new benchmark surveys for the purpose of inclusion under OBC categories in a PIL and the notifications. The state government has included 49 subsections under the OBC-A and 91 under the OBC-B categories vide the executive notifications. It has been stated that while more backward sections of people have been included under OBC-A, the less backward people come under OBC-B. The Calcutta High Court had in May 2024 struck down the OBC status of several classes in West Bengal granted since 2010, finding such reservations to vacancies in services and posts in the state are illegal. The court struck down 77 classes of reservation given between April 2010 and September 2010, and 37 classes were created based on the state's Reservation Act of 2012. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the West Bengal government and the matter is pending there.
India Today
13 minutes ago
- India Today
Top court asks poll body to include Aadhaar, EPIC in Bihar voter roll revision
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its reluctance to accept Aadhaar and Voter ID Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC) as valid documents in the ongoing voter list revision in Bihar, pointing out that any document can be forged.A bench led by Justice Suryakant expressed concern over the exclusionary approach of the poll panel and stressed the need to include both documents in the verification document on earth can be forged," Justice Suryakant observed, pressing the Election Commission to clarify why Aadhaar and EPIC were not being fully accepted, even though Aadhaar is already being sought in the registration form. On July 10, the Supreme Court asked the Election Commission to include Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration card as valid documents for voter registration in Bihar's ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), and said that it was necessary "in the interest of justice". The court also allowed the revision exercise to today's hearing, the poll panel argued that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and raised concerns about fake ration cards, adding that large-scale forgery made it difficult to rely on the Commission conceded that Aadhaar could be submitted as proof of identity and that its number is already requested in the registration top court responded by questioning the inconsistency, noting that if no document on the Election Commission's own list is conclusive, the same argument could apply to Aadhaar and EPIC."If tomorrow, even the other ten documents you've accepted are found forged, where is the mechanism to prevent that? Why allow mass exclusions and not mass inclusions?" the bench court also requested a timeline for the process if someone is excluded from the hearing pertains to a petition challenging the exclusion of documents like Aadhaar and the alleged large-scale removals from the Bihar electoral urged the court to halt the finalisation of the draft list, arguing that citizens would be forced to individually contest exclusions. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, requested an interim stay on the publication of the draft rolls scheduled for August the court asked the counsels to submit a timeline for their arguments and said it will decide the hearing schedule tomorrow, July 29.- EndsTune InMust Watch
