Article 143: What is the context of the Presidential reference to SC regarding TN Governor case?
Article 143 of the Constitution allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on matters of law. This provision has been invoked by President Droupadi Murmu to raise 14 questions on a recent Supreme Court judgement. It concerns a case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against its Governor, who had withheld assent to 10 bills indefinitely. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Tamil Nadu government, laying down a three-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by the State legislatures.
The larger context of this development is the ongoing tussle between the Union government and Opposition-ruled States, with many wondering if this Presidential reference represents a political pushback from the Union government.
Historically, what has been the logic for such references? How is this particular Presidential reference different in its substance from a review petition? Is the Supreme Court bound to take it up or can it decline the reference?
Guest: Supreme Court advocate Deepak Joshi
Host: G Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu
Recorded by Jude Francis Weston and Tayyab Hussain
Edited by Jude Francis Weston
For more In Focus episodes:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Govt targeting 2034 to hold 1st 'one nation, one election'
NEW DELHI: As the govt is expecting to hold the first countrywide simultaneous polls by 2034 after passage of the constitutional amendment bill for 'one nation, one election', all state assemblies to be elected after 2029 will be for a shorter duration to align their tenure with the 2034 general elections. Head of the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) on the 'one nation, one election' bill (The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024) PP Choudhary explained to TOI that after 2027, the assembly due to be elected in 2032 may have a tenure of only two years to ensure the synchronisation of the next elections in Uttar Pradesh-India's largest state electorally -with the Lok Sabha polls which may be held in 2034. The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill), 2024, have provisions for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. As per provisions of the constitution amendment bill, the President may issue a notification on the date of the first sitting of Lok Sabha after a general election, in all probability the one to be held in 2029, to spell when the next general elections will be due. The terms of all state assemblies constituted after this date will expire with the end of that Lok Sabha's five-year term. If Lok Sabha or a state assembly is dissolved earlier than its five-year term, an election for it will be held for a term equal to the remainder of the five-year term. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 전체임플란트 간단 뼈이식포함 300만원에 kimplant 더 알아보기 Undo This will synchronise its next election with the simultaneous elections cycle. Even in states, where polls will be due, elections for assemblies will be held only to align with the Lok Sabha polls. However, the bill states that if the Election Commission is of the opinion that election to a state assembly cannot be held along with the rest of the country, it may make a recommendation to the President in this regard. The President may issue an order to conduct an election for that assembly at a later date. The BJP MP from Pali in Rajasthan, Choudhary, said going by the JPC's working, its tenure may be extended as there was a consensus amongst panel members to visit states and UTs before making the final recommendations. So far, JPC members have visited Maharashtra and Uttarakhand. The bills had been introduced in LS in Dec last year and were referred to the Chaudhary-led panel which has been holding consultations with stakeholders for feedback.
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Manesar land scam: Court to rule on charges against 3 more accused
Panchkula: In a significant development in the Manesar land scam, a special CBI court has opted to first decide on framing charges against three more people before consolidating the chargesheet against former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and 30 others. Special CBI Judge Rajiv Goyal made the ruling last Friday, following the Punjab and Haryana high court's vacation of a stay on proceedings. The three individuals facing potential charges are former IAS officer D R Dhingra and private persons Dhare Singh and Kulwant Singh Lamba. The court has scheduled July 10 for resumed arguments regarding the chargesheet against this trio. The extensive case implicates former CM Hooda, his three ex-principal secretaries – Murari Lal Tayal (also facing another trial), S S Dhillon, and Chhattar Singh – as well as various companies and their office bearers involved in the controversial land transactions. The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings against another accused bureaucrat, Rajiv Arora, who was named in the initial chargesheet. The scam revolves around 914 acres of land in Manesar, Gurugram district, originally slated for acquisition to develop an Industrial Model Township (IMT). Following the Aug 2004 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, a rush to acquire land at low prices ensued. Builders and land mafia reportedly capitalised on residents' panic, acquiring plots at "throwaway rates". Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo In 2007, the industrial department released the land from the acquisition process. Allegations of political patronage in the builder-official-land mafia nexus led aggrieved parties to court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to probe the matter, leading to the chargesheet naming former CM Hooda. MSID:: 121731795 413 |
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Can Donald Trump call for Gov Newsom's arrest over LA riots? Here's what the law says
President Donald Trump on Monday suggested his border czar Tom Homan should arrest Gov Gavin Newsom amid riots in Los Angeles. 'I would do it … I think it would be a great thing,' Trump responded when asked if Homan should arrest the governor, who has challenged the administration's mobilization of National Guard in LA. Newsom, too, was quick to slam Trump. "The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America," he said on X, platform formerly known as Twitter. Read More: Los Angeles protests: 'Incendiary devices' hurled at police horses, says LAPD No, Trump cannot unilaterally arrest Gov Newsom over riots in Los Angeles. The US Constitution and legal system have clear checks and balances that prevent a former president—or even a sitting president—from directly arresting state officials without due process. Separation of Powers (Article II & III of the Constitution) The president does not have the judicial authority to issue warrants. Only law enforcement, backed by court orders, can detain someone. Any attempt to arrest Newsom without due process would violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee fair legal procedures. State Sovereignty – Tenth Amendment Under the US system of federalism, states like California retain control over their own officials and law enforcement. The president cannot interfere in state governance unless federal law is violated and due process is followed. Read More: After tear gas and street fires, an Los Angeles community cleans up as National Guard troops arrive Military Limitations – The Posse Comitatus Act (18 US Code § 1385) This law forbids the use of the US military to carry out domestic law enforcement activities without explicit congressional authorization. Even in times of civil unrest, the president cannot use the military to detain or arrest state leaders like Newsom. No Legal Authority Post-Presidency As a former president, Trump has no legal powers—executive, military, or judicial. He cannot issue federal commands or make arrests.
