SC asks Delhi govt to issue order declaring Lodhi-era 'Gumti of Shaikh Ali' protected monument
The two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, passed the direction to the Delhi govt after hearing an appeal filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri, who sought a direction to declare the Gumti as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act).
Suri had knocked the doors of the apex court after his plea was earlier dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
During the course of the hearing on Wednesday, the top court went through some report filed by the Delhi government, including a notification and clarified that it was not 'happily (properly) worded'.
'Let the notification (to declare the monument as a protected one under the law) be re-issued by the Delhi government,' the bench told the Delhi govt.
Making it clear that there should not be any illegal structures or encroachments near the area, the court asked the authorities to demolish the illegal structures, if any, inside the monument site.
It directed the court commissioner to visit and inspect the concerned area and apprise the bench about the work undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC bench to hear Presidential reference on timelines for bills on July 22
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 Press Trust of India New Delhi A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. 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. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor. The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum. The rules prescribe that the review petitions be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers, while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of the governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor to exercise constitutional options. The President said that similarly, Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India. "It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," President Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion. The SC verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which passed the verdict, said that reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" was strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
NDTV
36 minutes ago
- NDTV
Chief Justice BR Gavai Joins Delhi Government's Plantation Drive
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai on Saturday said forests do not belong to us alone but to future generations and stressed the need to strike a balance between development and environmental preservation. #WATCH | Delhi Forest & Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa says, "Today, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and other Supreme Court judges joined the 'Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam' campaign... They gave a message that to make Delhi pollution-free, we all have to… — ANI (@ANI) July 19, 2025 Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was speaking at a mega plantation drive organised by the Delhi Government under Van Mahotsav 2025 at the PBG Ground in Delhi Ridge. "Everyone starts getting worried as soon as October arrives," the chief justice said, alluding to Delhi's annual battle with pollution. "While development is important, we must understand the cost at which it comes. Forests, which are a part of humanity's lineage, do not belong to us alone, "they belong to future generations too. They play a vital role in reducing Delhi's pollution," he added. Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, accompanied by 20 judges of the Supreme Court, participated in the drive alongside Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa. The event was also part of the nationwide 'Ek Ped Ma Ke Naam' campaign launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The chief justice highlighted the Supreme Court's consistent emphasis on sustainable development and its landmark advisories on pollution control, urging all stakeholders to recognise their shared responsibility in addressing the capital's environmental crisis. Sirsa thanked Gavai and the judges for their participation, saying their presence sent a powerful message about the importance of collective action. "As the CJI rightly said, collective responsibility is key to protecting Delhi's environment," the environment minister said. "Their participation under the 'Ek Ped Ma Ke Naam' campaign reinforces our commitment to restoring Delhi's green cover and reclaiming clean air," he said. Officials said thousands of saplings were planted during the drive, which aims to mitigate urban heat, improve air quality, and enhance Delhi's biodiversity.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to hear Presidential reference on President, Governor's powers on July 22
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a Presidential reference on July 22, questioning whether the court can 'impose' timelines and prescribe the manner of conduct of Governors and the President while dealing with State Bills sent to them for assent or reserved for consideration. A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar will hear the matter. Broadly, the Presidential reference has asked whether judicial orders can dictate by what time and in what manner the President and Governors should function under Articles 200 (which covers the process of grant of assent by Governors to State Bills), and 201 (when Bills are reserved by Governors for Presidential assent) of the Constitution. 'In the absence of any constitutionally prescribed time limit or manner of exercise of powers by a Governor, can time limits be imposed and manner of exercise of powers be prescribed through judicial orders? Can judicial orders impose timelines and manner of exercise of powers by the President under Article 201?' the Presidential reference has asked. Deemed assent in T.N. case The President's move to seek clarity under the top court's advisory jurisdiction arises from an April 8 judgment by a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, in a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the State Governor's delay in clearing 10 re-passed Bills, and his subsequent action to reserve them for consideration by the President. The two-judge Bench had ruled that the Governor's action was illegal. This had led to the default cancellation of the President's decision to assent to one of the 10 Bills, while rejecting seven. and not considering two others. The verdict, authored by Justice Pardiwala, had invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to deem that all 10 Bills had got assent. The reference has now sought the court's opinion on the very 'contours and scope' of Article 142. Questions scope of Article 142 'Can the Constitutional powers of the President/Governors be substituted by a judicial order exercising Article 142? Is Article 142 limited to matters of procedural law or does it extend to issuing directions contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution?' it asked. Indirectly questioning the validity of the 'deemed' assent, the reference has asked whether a law made by a State Legislature could even 'be considered a law in force without the assent of the Governor'. 'Are decisions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage prior to even the Bill in question becoming a law? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?' the Presidential reference queried. It said that the 'concept of deemed assent' of the President and the Governor, introduced in the judgment, was alien to the constitutional scheme, and worked to fundamentally circumscribe the power of the President and Governors. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar had called Article 142 a 'nuclear missile against democratic forces'. 'Governor violated Constitution' In his judgment, Justice Pardiwala had explained that Article 142 was invoked only to do complete justice in public interest for the people of Tamil Nadu. 'We are not exercising our power under Article 142 in a casual manner or without giving a thought to it. On the contrary, it is only after deepest of deliberations, and having reached at the firm conclusion that the actions of the Governor — first in exhibiting prolonged inaction over the bills; secondly in declaring a simpliciter withholding of assent and returning the bills without a message; and thirdly in reserving the bills for the President in the second round — were all in clear violation of the procedure envisaged under the Constitution,' the judgment had reasoned. Questions two-judge Bench ruling The Presidential reference has also raised questions about a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court pronouncing judgments on substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution without referring it to a minimum five-judge Bench as prescribed under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. The reference has also touched on the basics of Article 200, asking the court to clarify the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200. The April 8 judgment had clearly specified that a Governor has three choices in this situation: assent, withhold assent, or reserve a Bill for consideration by the President. The court had underscored that a Governor could not indefinitely delay a decision on a Bill as it represented the 'will of the people'. Again, the Presidential reference sought the court's opinion on whether a Governor was bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers under Article 200. The judgment had clearly stated that Governors, as a general rule, must abide by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet under Article 200 while deciding on Bills. 'Bar to judicial review' The reference has raised doubts as to whether the 'constitutional discretion' of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, was even justiciable. It maintained that there were 'conflicting judgments' of the Supreme Court. 'Is Article 361 of the Constitution [immunity given to President and Governors from legal action while in office] an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200?' the Presidential reference asked. Justice Pardiwala had dealt with this question while referring to the court's own past judgments. 'The immunity enshrined in Article 361 of the Constitution does not preclude or prohibit the courts in any manner from looking into the actions of the Governor which by necessary implication would include his actions under Article 200 as well,' the Supreme Court had held in its April 8 judgment. The Presidential reference is dated May 13, the last working day of Justice Sanjiv Khanna as Chief Justice of India. The responsibility has now fallen to the current Chief Justice Gavai to form a Constitution Bench to consider the Presidential reference.
