Global partners, neighbours extend greetings to India on 79th Independence Day
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Cong PAC to meet on Aug 23, take call on 42% BC quota, panchayat polls
Hyderabad: Keeping in view that the ordinance to remove 50% cap on over all reservations from the Panchayat Raj Act of 2018 is still pending with President Droupadi Murmu, the crucial decision on how to extend the enhanced Backward Classes (BC) quota in local body elections or to go to court seeking more time, will be decided at the all-important political affairs committee meeting (PAC) of the Telangana Congress on Aug 23. Telangana Congress president and MLC B Mahesh Kumar Goud, BC welfare minister Ponnam Prabhakar, senior leader V Hanumanth Rao among others met chief minister A Revanth Reddy at his residence on Sunday and finalised the date for PAC meeting to be held at Gandhi Bhavan on Aug 23 (Saturday) from 5 pm. The PAC would decide the dates for panchayat elections and how to extend the 42% BC quota in local bodies, and an effective strategy to be adopted to counter BRS and BJP and sweep the local body elections. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad | Gold Rates Today in Hyderabad | Silver Rates Today in Hyderabad Sources privy to the meeting between the TPCC chief and CM Revanth told TOI that both the sides reiterated their commitment to ensure 42% quota is extended to the BCs in panchayat elections. The meeting was of the view that the rural local body polls could be conducted in 20 to 25 days as the State Election Commission has almost completed the pre-poll exercise and that police would be in a position to provide security with a major security-cover intensive Ganesh festival being completed by then. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo "Mahesh Goud along with minister Ponnam Prabhakar also discussed with the CM whether to go to the high court, which set Sept 30 deadline for panchayat election to be completed, and seek more time. The discussions included that the state govt can present before the court all the steps taken to extend 42% reservations, including the ordinance, which is pending approval with the President. Finally, it was decided that the majority opinion of the PAC will be taken, based on which the CM will take a decision by discussing it in the cabinet," a senior leader said. The PAC, comprises the CM, TPCC president, Dy CM, all the ministers, AICC in charge of Telangana Meenakshi Natrajan and other important senior leaders. The Congress govt has also taken legal opinion on enhanced BC quota, an issue that would also be discussed at the PAC meeting. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Scroll.in
a day ago
- Scroll.in
Setting deadlines for president, governors can cause ‘constitutional disorder': Centre tells SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by state Assemblies would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, PTI quoted the Centre as telling the Supreme Court. Such a move could lead to 'constitutional disorder', it added. The Centre's submission was in response to a notice issued by the Supreme Court on July 22 to the Centre and all state governments on a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu about the court's April 8 ruling that set deadlines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills. A constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar is hearing the matter. In a written reply on August 12, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy. 'The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. He added: 'If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by the framers [of the Constitution].' The April 8 ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgment had also introduced the concept of 'deemed assent' in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling. Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance. In his note, Mehta argued that the positions of governor and president are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through judicial interventions, he added. Challenging the April 8 ruling, Mehta said that Articles 200 and 201 deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. 'Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit.' 'To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' Mehta added.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
SC's interference in Prez-guv powers will destabilise power balance: Govt
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: In a blazing response to Supreme Court 's judgment fixing deadlines for President and governors in granting or withholding assent to bills passed by assemblies, Centre on Saturday warned impermissible invasion of constitutionally conferred high plenary zone on the top constitutional post holders by SC in the garb of judicial review powers would destabilise the balance of powers among the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. "A wide-ranging judicial review of assent procedures, either post-assent or at a stage anterior to the grant of assent, would potentially destabilise the constitutional balance between organs of State. It would create an institutional hierarchy and upset the constitutional balance of powers between the three organs," it said, adding the judiciary does not hold keys or solutions for every conundrum that may arise in a democratic society. Objecting to the manner in which SC used its exclusive powers under Article 142 to arrogate itself the power to amend the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and governors in granting or withholding assent to bills and grant "deemed assent" to 10 Tamil Nadu bills, the Centre said, "Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional & legislative process on its head. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Next-Level Tablet Experience Awaits with Blackview MEGA 8 BlackView Shop Now Undo " In its written submissions filed Saturday in support of President Droupadi Murmu's reference raising 14 queries to situations arising after the contentious Apr 8 judgment by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, Centre said exercising judicial powers over decisions of the President and governors in relation to bills would confer supremacy on judiciary, which is against the Constitution's basic structure, a red line that cannot be crossed by any organ of governance. "The classical notion of judicial review cannot be lifted and applied to assent as the factors at play during the grant or withholding of assent have no legal or constitutional parallel. The unique duality of assent thus deserves a uniquely calibrated judicial approach," it said. It said each of the three organs of governance derive power from the Constitution, which does not assign any higher pedigree or superiority to any one organ that would enable judiciary to relegate the high position of gubernatorial post to a subservient one. Issues relating to bills, with regard to decisions of the President and governors, "deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial," the Centre said. Certain political questions may arise in the exercise of the core functions of any of the three organs, and these would have been answered through democratic remedies under the Constitution. The judiciary, in the zest of finding a solution to every problem, cannot brush aside the essential constitutional feature of separation of powers, the Centre said. Though some overlap has happened over the years despite clear separation of powers envisaged by the Constitution, the powers and limitations of these three organs flow from the same constitutional text without ascribing "any higher pedigree or superior legitimacy to any organ", it said. Notwithstanding the overlap, certain zones remain exclusive to each - Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, it said, adding none can trench upon the domain exclusive to another. Disapproving the manner in which the Tamil Nadu governor was treated in SC's Apr 8 judgment, the Centre said governors are not foreigners in states, not just emissaries of the Centre but represent national interest and democratic will in states as part of national fraternity. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. On the other hand, when it designedly sought to keep the exercise of powers flexible, it did not impose any fixed time limit. Since the text of Art 200 or 201, does not provide a specific time limit, no form of judicial review or judicial interpretation can impose the same." it said.
