SC passes no final order, asks AG how to handle Bills kept pending by Governor
The Bench instead asked the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, to assist on the lawful options available when a Governor keeps Bills pending for years.
A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, is hearing the Presidential Reference on questions relating to grant of assent to Bills.
The Bench noted that the two-judge verdict had invoked Article 142 to declare assent to 10 Tamil Nadu Bills that had been pending since 2020, citing the Governor's prolonged inaction.
Justice Surya Kant pointed to paragraphs 431–433 of the judgment, where the earlier Bench recorded the Governor's repeated delays and failure to follow constitutional procedure.
Admitting the factual correctness of the delays, Attorney General Venkataramani maintained that even in such undesirable circumstances, the Court could not step into the Governor's shoes.
'Can the Court invoke Article 142 to declare deemed assent? That has to be tested,' he said, cautioning that the ruling had created 'disquieting features' and could set a precedent extending beyond the Tamil Nadu case.
Justice Narasimha noted that the earlier judgment appeared to be tailored to an 'extraordinary fact situation' rather than laying down a general principle.
'It was not in the form of a precedent, it was to handle a situation,' he observed.
The Attorney General, however, warned that once recognised, the doctrine of 'deemed assent' could be applied in future cases: 'The moment the Court enters into this arena, there will be mind-boggling facts which the Court may have to confront.'
The Court said, no change in law or directions issued on 'deemed assent'.
The Court sought assistance from the Attorney General on the constitutionally permissible recourse in cases of prolonged delay by a Governor.
The Bench noted the earlier Tamil Nadu Governor's judgment may have addressed an 'egregious situation,' but questioned whether Article 142 can be used to declare deemed assent.
Justice Surya Kant referred to the earlier judgment noting Bills from 2020 were pending; the AG confirmed this was factually correct and argued that courts cannot step into the Governor's role, even in undesirable situations.
The Court listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow (Wednesday, August 20).
UNI SNG SS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Public notices issued informing non-included Bihar voters to submit Aadhaar along with claims, ECI tells Supreme Court
The Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the Supreme Court on Thursday (August 21, 2025) that its public notices have expressly mentioned that copies of Aadhaar cards can be submitted along with their claims by voters aggrieved by non-inclusion in the draft Bihar electoral roll. The application filed by the ECI seeking to place on record a status report follows an interim order passed by an apex court Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant on August 14 directing the poll panel to publish an enumerated, booth-wise list of approximately 65 lakh electors not included in the draft electoral roll during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in poll-bound Bihar. The ECI said the list of names and details of 65 lakh electors in Bihar who were not included in the draft roll published on August 1 had been posted on the websites of all 38 District Electoral Officers in the State. The list also contained the reasons for their non-inclusion, including death, shifting of ordinary residence or duplicate entries. Physical copies of the list have been displayed in panchayat bhavans, block development offices and panchayat offices in villages across Bihar for people to easily access them and enable enquiry. Also read: ECI lists Bihar SIR, regular interactions with parties among its 28 key initiatives The ECI said advertisements about the online availability of the lists had been issued in major newspapers, on radio and television and posted on social media. Right to know The Court upheld the Bihar voters' 'right to know' and to preserve their Constitutional right to remain on the electoral roll in a democracy. 'People have a right to know. A high degree of transparency is required to inspire voters' confidence. Put up the names of excluded electors with reasons out there in the public domain for all to see,' the Court had addressed the ECI. The 65 lakh names were dropped from the draft roll despite the fact that their names had featured in the voters' list prepared after a summary revision, merely months ago, in January 2025. The August 14 order was also the first time the Court had formally directed the use of Aadhaar as proof of identity and residence in the Bihar SIR exercise. 'Aadhaar is a statutorily recognised instrument of identity and residence. It can be submitted as a document,' the Court had orally remarked. The case is scheduled for hearing on August 22, 2025.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on plea challenging removal of stray dogs from streets of Delhi NCR
The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Friday (August 22, 2025), its ruling on a batch of interim pleas seeking a stay on its contentious August 11, 2025, suo motu directive requiring civic authorities in Delhi and four adjoining districts to capture all stray dogs and confine them in shelters within six to eight weeks. While reserving the case for judgment, a Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, and also comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, had remarked that local civic authorities were failing in their duty to address the growing public health risks posed by stray dogs. Also Read | Shelter or vaccinate: Before deciding, India must count its stray dogs accurately On Thursday (August 21, 2025), a different Bench refused to urgently list a plea by an animal rights group, which contended that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had gone ahead with a notification to round up stray dogs even though the apex court had already reserved its judgment. The suo motu case, initially heard by a Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, was later reassigned by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath. The reassignment followed an oral mentioning on August 13, 2025, by a lawyer who apprised the CJI of a May 9, 2024, order mandating compassionate treatment of stray canines. In a rare administrative move, the CJI withdrew the case from Justice Pardiwala's Bench and reassigned it to the three-judge Bench led by Justice Nath. The larger Bench heard the matter at length on August 14, 2025, before reserving orders. During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Union Government, had said that most fatalities from dog bites and rabies involved children and urged the court to craft an immediate solution to what he described as an escalating public health crisis. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for an NGO which looks after dogs, had pressed for a stay on some of the directives in the August 11, 2025, order, contending that they contravened the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which prohibit relocation of strays from their original place of habitation. In its August 11, 2025, order, Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan directed the MCD and other civic authorities to round up all stray dogs within eight weeks and keep them in dedicated shelters, with no re-release onto the streets. Justice Pardiwala had said authorities should 'at the earliest start picking up stray dogs from all localities, more particularly the vulnerable localities of the city as well as areas on the outskirts'. The authorities had also been directed to establish shelters with the capacity to house at least 5,000 strays within eight weeks. EDITORIAL | Dogs and laws: On street dogs and the Supreme Court order The Bench had further highlighted that Delhi recorded as many as 25,201 dog-bite cases in 2024 and said that its directions were being issued in the larger public interest. At the same time, the order had instructed authorities to ensure that canines in shelters are neither mistreated nor deprived of food and that vulnerable animals were housed separately with access to veterinary care. However, the directives sparked widespread outrage among animal rights activists, public figures, and welfare organisations, who have argued that the region lacks sufficient facilities to accommodate an estimated eight lakh stray dogs. They have cautioned that the large-scale capture of so many animals could result in logistical chaos and lead to acts of cruelty.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Kerala HC allows ship owners of capsized MSC Elsa 3 to issue public notice on limited liability
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Thursday permitted the owners of the capsized vessel MSC Elsa 3 to publish public notices in connection with an admiralty suit filed by them seeking to limit liability for maritime claims arising out of the ship's sinking. The suit was filed under Part XA of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, which provides for the limitation of liability of ship-owners in relation to maritime losses. The plaintiffs approached the High Court after several claims were raised against them following the incident. Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, while considering an interim application, allowed the plaintiffs to issue notices in multiple publications - all editions of the Malayalam daily 'Malayala Manorama', the Kochi and Mumbai editions of 'The Times of India', and the international maritime journal 'Trade Winds'. In their plaint, the ship-owners included seven defendants who had already lodged claims, and designated "Defendant No. 8" as all persons claiming or being entitled to claim damages. This inclusion, they argued, was to ensure a general public notice and to cover all potential claimants. The senior counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the limitation of liability is rooted in international maritime law and serves the larger interests of shippers and trade. "There is a public policy purpose in limiting liability," the counsel argued. The defendants' lawyers did not oppose the publication of public notices, prompting the court to pass the interim order. 'This is only for the advancement of justice. It will not defeat the purpose,' Justice Abdul Hakhim orally observed. Senior counsel V.J. Mathew pointed out that the Kerala High Court has not framed separate rules to deal with claims under Part XA. However, the court noted that a coordinate bench had already directed the Registry to number the suit after considering precedents from the Bombay and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. "When the suit is numbered, this court has to proceed with the suit like any other suit," Justice Abdul Hakhim observed. The court directed the plaintiffs to submit a draft of the paper publication within three days, while listing the matter for further hearing on September 18.
