Letter to CS on link road from Paud Phata to Balbharati
Keskar wrote, "The PMC (
Pune Municipal Corporation
) planned the Balbharati to Paud Phata road link by following all the provisions of the MRTP Act. The Bombay High Court rejected the petition regarding this road and allowed the PMC to construct it. The
Supreme Court
has not granted any stay on the project. The Central Empowered Committee does not have the authority to stay the direction of the high court; the Supreme Court has the sole authority."
Keskar and Kulkarni sent the letter to the chief secretary after the Supreme Court-constituted Central Empowered Committee requested the chief secretary to ensure that no construction was carried out in the "deemed forest" area because its report on the proposed road link was pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
Keskar claimed that the said area was not declared a deemed forest and hence, state govt should issue appropriate orders to the PMC to make this road available to people after completing all legal procedures.
He also plans to approach the Union environment, forests and climate change minister, Bhupender Yadav, regarding the execution of the proposed road link. "We will put forth all the details and documents, and file a formal complaint with the Union environment minister seeking his intervention in the issue," Keskar said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Can elected govt be at whims and fancies of Governor, asks CJI
The Supreme Court bench hearing the Presidential reference asked the government Wednesday whether an elected government can be placed at 'the whims and fancies of the Governor' by vesting him/her with the power to withhold a Bill forever. 'But then would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeals?… The government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the Governor,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Centre. The bench said that to interpret that the Bill 'dies' the first time the Governor withholds it 'would be counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process'. The five-judge Constitution bench is hearing President Droupadi Murmu's reference on timelines fixed by a two-judge bench for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state legislatures. Delving into the contours of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, Mehta told the bench: 'It is not an asylum for retired politicians but has its own sanctity which was debated in the Constituent Assembly.' He said the Governor, though unelected, represents the President and is not just a 'postman' to mechanically approve Bills. 'A person who is not directly elected is not a lesser person,' he said. Addressing the bench which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, Mehta said the Governor has the option to grant assent to a Bill referred by the state legislature, withhold assent, refer it to the President in case of repugnancy with any Central law or return it to the state legislature for reconsideration. He said withholding is not a temporary act, and that 5-judge and 7-judge benches of the Supreme Court have interpreted it to mean that the Bill 'falls through'. Illustrating this, he said, 'Suppose a border state passes a Bill dealing with our external affairs, that we will permit a particular country's people to enter or not, then he cannot assent, he cannot refer it to President because it's not a repugnancy issue, and he cannot resend it to the House because if it is again passed, he cannot say no to it. So he will have to withhold.' He said the power 'has to be used rarely, sparingly, but that is the way the situation is'. The CJI then asked, 'If he doesn't exercise the option of resending the Bill for reconsideration, he can withhold it for time immemorial?' 'It dies,' Mehta said, reiterating that 'it (the power) is to be used rarely but power is conferred.' He said, 'The very language in which Article 200 is couched, it gives him options.' He said 'neither textually nor contextually, it is possible to conclude that the term withhold will have to be read as a temporary suspension of powers of granting assent till first proviso works out. There is no concept of temporary withholding of any Bill. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to link the term withhold in the main part of Article 200 to read only in the context of first proviso, two things would have been provided: (a) term withhold in the main part would have been qualified with the term subject to first proviso mentioned therein, (b) the first proviso would have mentioned that the Bill so withheld shall be reconsidered by the House, which is not there.' Justice Narasimha said the options must remain open-ended so that the political process has the chance to resolve the deadlock over a Bill. 'The way the political process occurs is not adjudicatory. Even assuming the Governor says I withhold, the political process can knock his doors and he can still open it and say, I will send it back to you, you consider and send it back. But to say… the first time he says, I withhold, the matter comes to an end… It can't be like that. It is counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process also. It has to be in a situation where it is open-ended,' he said. He was quick to add that the court understood that the Solicitor General was referring to Bills on subjects in the Union List. On the debate over the discretionary powers of the Governor, Justice Narasimha said, 'At that time we did not have impact assessment of a statute … Now, you see the amount of litigation it has thrown up by having provisions of this nature. Perhaps that could tell us whether the vision was right or not. Because the validity or correctness of a thought will come from its performance.' Mehta said he was 'not arguing that the Governor has unlimited discretion'. CJI Gavai said, 'We have some experience as to how some honourable Governors have exercised their discretion leading to so many litigations, but we are not going by that.' Mehta said, 'Indian democracy is a matured democracy. There may be aberrations on an individual level. But by and large, the democracy under this very Constitution has worked very effectively. And I personally experienced it during Covid times, how the Centre-state federal balance envisaged was on display. So it would be really hazardous to assess on the basis of some aberrations.'
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
State doubles down on 6-6-5 matrix for Scheduled Castes, plans panel to monitor reservation
Bengaluru: Barely 24 hours after a special cabinet meeting which decided on a 6-6-5 formula for internal reservation among Scheduled Castes, chief minister Siddaramaiah said the govt will set up a Permanent Scheduled Castes Commission to periodically study socio-economic mobility of communities and recommend changes in the quota structure. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Making a formal statement in the assembly Wednesday, Siddaramaiah clarified that the govt had not rejected the Justice HN Nagamohan Das Commission report as alleged by the opposition. "The govt is pleased to place before this House that the report of Justice Nagamohan Das has been accepted with modifications," Siddaramaiah said. "We believe that this decision will do justice to the decades-long struggle for internal reservation." He said the got will soon begin recruitment under the new matrix, with a one-time relaxation in age limit. He also said cases filed against activists who fought for internal reservation will be withdrawn and future revisions in quota distribution would be based on data from the upcoming national census. He said restructuring of the Commission's report was intended to ensure fairness. "These changes were made to ensure equality and fairness in access to education, employment and other opportunities for all 101 Scheduled Castes. In making this decision, the cabinet has adhered to the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment," he said. Detailing modifications, Siddaramaiah said: "Communities identified by the Commission as Left-Hand section will be provided 6% internal reservation; the Commission had grouped castes such as Paraya and Mogera (Right-Hand) with the Left-Hand section. The cabinet decided to retain these communities with the Right-Hand group, and therefore, 6% reservation will be given to the Right-Hand section." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Nagamohan Das had suggested 4% reservation for touchable castes and 1% for 59 castes with a combined population of 5,22,099, categorised as sub-group A. Siddaramaiah said the cabinet had merged these two categories for administrative reasons and provide 5% reservation together. Siddaramaiah said the govt's move was consistent with constitutional provisions and referred to Supreme Court judgments to assert that the state govt has the authority to sub-classify SCs. While Congress hailed the decision as a milestone in social justice, opposition BJP said the framework was prepared by its govt earlier and Congress was only rehashing and presenting it again. With speaker UT Khader disallowing a debate, BJP members staged a walkout in protest. Deputy CM DK Shivakumar remarked: "We have resolved an issue that was pending for 25 years. The Scheduled Caste community is happy. I appeal to you (opposition) to be happy too." Khader said that while the opposition's demand for a debate was valid, the govt was also within its rights to refuse. He said the matter may be taken up on Friday if time permits.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
State will be at whim of Governors if bills held up: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong reservations over the Union government's interpretation of the governor's powers under the Constitution, observing that if a governor could permanently withhold assent to bills passed by an elected state legislature, it would effectively leave the state government at the 'whims and fancies' of a nominated office-bearer. Tushar Mehta insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances' The remarks came on the second day of hearings before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, on a presidential reference under Article 143. The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling that had, for the first time, prescribed timelines for governors and the President to decide on bills pending before them. At the heart of Wednesday's arguments was the Centre's reading of the word 'withhold' in Article 200, which solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued empowers a governor to reject a bill outright, leaving it to 'fall through' without the option of being sent back to the legislature. Article 200 entails options for the governor to either grant assent to a bill passed by the state legislature, 'withhold' assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's approval 'This power has to be exercised sparingly and rarely, but this power is there with him,' submitted Mehta, adding that to deny such authority would reduce the governor to 'a mere post office'. The bench, however, pushed back. 'If he does not send the bill again, he can still withhold a bill for time immemorial,' the court pointed out, citing instances such as Tamil Nadu where bills re-enacted by the assembly had remained in limbo without any declaration from the governor. 'Will we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in appeal over the decisions of an elected government? Then, a government elected with majority will be at the whims and fancy of the governor,' it added. The bench also underscored that constitutional interpretation cannot remain 'frozen in time' and must be informed by experience. 'When the laws were made originally, ideal situations were contemplated…But interpretation is a process and it takes into account how these constitutional functionaries are working today.' The bench cited the example of the anti-defection law under the 10th Schedule, where the speaker was originally seen as the best adjudicator, but decades of litigation had forced courts to re-examine that assumption. 'The validity of a constitutional vision comes by its performance and experience,'said the bench, adding that the absence of legislative impact assessments during framing had left provisions such as Article 200 vulnerable to 'complications and disputes'. Mehta, however, insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances', including on matters implicating national security or where a bill may violate fundamental rights. 'His oath of defending the Constitution will require him to exercise this power in the rarest of rare cases,' he said, while cautioning the court against turning the governor into a ceremonial figure. The bench repeatedly pressed the solicitor general on whether the power to 'withhold' could be read as an indefinite veto, pointing out that the proviso to Article 200 itself prohibits a governor from withholding assent once a bill has been re-passed by the assembly. 'If the meaning of withhold is to kill a bill, then how do we reconcile this with the proviso?' the court asked. During the daylong hearing, SG Mehta referred extensively to the Constituent Assembly debates to reinforce his point. The bench, however, posed a pointed question on whether governors in practice have lived up to the vision articulated by the framers of the Constitution, which emphasised harmony between the governor and the elected state government. 'The first part of this speech you are reading says there should be harmony between the governor and the elected government. The second part says that the provincial government would be consulted for the appointment of the governor. Is it done? Whether the expectations expressed during the Constituent Assembly debates have been really realised?' it said. At one point, the bench maintained that the governor must 'declare' or communicate his decision of withholding a bill to the state assembly, adding the central points of debate would be around the meaning of the term 'withhold' and the timeline. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the President when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. While making clear on Tuesday that it is only rendering an advisory opinion and not sitting in appeal over its April decision, the Constitution Bench has indicated that the meaning of 'withhold' under Article 200, and whether such discretion can amount to an absolute veto, will be central to its opinion.
