&w=3840&q=100)
Centre opposes Kerala's stand in SC to withdraw case against Governor
Press Trust of India New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to July 25 the pleas of the Kerala government against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar deferred the matter after attorney general R Venkataramani sought time.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought to withdraw the plea saying that the issue had become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills.
Mehta said the Kerala government's petition could also be referred to be tagged along with the presidential reference.
Calling it strange , Venugopal asked how could his plea be opposed.
"Why my lords are hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition? There has to be some rationale..this only means both parties will charge money," he said.
The bench then remarked, "We will make it very clear, tentatively there can't be an objection to withdraw." The matter was then posted on July 25.
On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas.
Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law.
The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received.
Kerala sought similar directions in its petition.
In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature.
Khan is currently Governor of Bihar.
The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared.
Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor.
The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President.
Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued.
The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added.
"The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said.
The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.
The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.
Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
(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.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
14 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Plea in SC says Bhopal gas victims are ‘misclassified'
A petition filed by the Bhopal gas disaster victims' rights groups claiming that survivors with lasting, severe injuries and illnesses have been wrongly classified under 'temporary disablement' and 'minor injury' and under-compensated for years has been lined up for hearing in the Supreme Court. The petition filed by organisations such as the Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush Sangharsh Morcha urged the top court to direct the Centre to identify these 'misclassified' victims and classify them correctly under the provisions of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 so that they receive adequate compensation to cover their medical treatment. The Centre has termed the Bhopal gas leak tragedy 'the world's largest industrial disaster'. Both the government and the Supreme Court have agreed the loss of innocent lives in the aftermath of the fatal escape of Methyl Isocynate (MIC) gas from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, on the intervening night of December 2-3, 1984 was 'horrific' in every sense. Centre's responsibility 'A long history of litigation attempting to recover damages from the U.S.-headquartered Union Carbide Corporation (now part of Dow Chemicals Corporation) ended with the dismissal by the Supreme Court of the curative petitions in July 2023 wherein it was made clear that any shortfall in compensation to be paid to the victims were a responsibility of the Union government,' the petition said. The organisations said they had data to show that survivors suffering from cancer and kidney failure as a result of toxic gas exposure were classified under the category of 'minor/temporary injury'. 'All these cases ought to have been added as a permanent disability category. Even as far back as in 1974, Union Carbide's internal document, titled MIC Plant Safety Considerations Report, had very clearly stated that in cases of inhalation of MIC 'major residual injury is likely in spite of prompt treatment'... This petition seeks to enforce that responsibility of the Union government, pointing out a certain category of cases in which the damages awarded and paid to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary,' the organisation submitted. The case was listed for hearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on July 14. However, the Bench did not assemble due to the inavailability of the Chief Justice. The case status shows the next date as July 18. The petitioners are represented by senior advocate S. Muralidhar and advocate Prasanna S. Focusing the extent of the disaster's impact on public health even decades later, the petition said records of the hospitals run by the government show that 'more than 30 years after the disaster, 95% of the population officially acknowledged to have been exposed to the toxic gas required hospital visits for their medical needs'. 'Data from the Central government-run hospital show that the incidence of heart ailments, neurology disorders, gastro and kidney ailments, psychiatric disorders and other chronic diseases is very high among gas-exposed patients. Records from eight community health units of the ICMR-run Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre [BMHRC] in Bhopal from 1998 to 2016 show that 50.4% of gas-affected patients suffer from cardiovascular problems and 59.6% suffer from pulmonary problems… In 2023 alone 2,06,016 gas victims visited the BMHRC,' the plea submitted.
News18
17 minutes ago
- News18
Sentimentalism Is Poor Substitute For Good Governance
Last Updated: Punjab govt will be better advised to—instead of spending time and energy on constitutional, legal minutiae—focus on fiscal prudence, economic policy framework, good governanc What does our political class do when they fail on all fronts? Well, it takes recourse to religion, hoping that it could be a useful opiate to numb the cognitive and cogitative faculties of people, thus diverting their attention from the real issues. So, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab, having failed to improve the situation in the state, is trying to bring a piece of legislation to provide for stricter punishments against sacrilege, including the death penalty. 'We will be convening a special session of Vidhan Sabha on July 10 and 11 to bring a historic legislation for stricter punishment against those found guilty of sacrilege. The Centre should have done it. However, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government is bringing it in Punjab as it understands the emotions of the people of the state," AAP spokesperson Neel Garg recently said. The spokesperson, indeed the state government, needs to understand that there are more important things for people than emotions—things like jobs, decent and healthy life, good human and physical environment. On every count, the AAP government in Punjab has failed. According to the latest report from the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) for October-December 2024, there was a steep rise in youth unemployment in urban Punjab. The rate in the 15-29 age group soared from 12.2 per cent in the July-September 2024 period to 14.9 per cent in October-December 2024. Female unemployment rates were higher than male. It is hardly surprising that the lack of opportunities at home fuels the young Punjabis' impulse to seek greener pastures in other countries. Many of them go to countries like the US and Canada by illegal means. When the US deported many Indians in a humiliating condition, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann urged the youth to learn lessons from the recent mass deportation of illegal migrants. He beseeched them to work hard in their native state to make it a frontrunner in the country. That, however, will be predicated upon objective conditions in the state: that is, fiscal policies and a sound policy framework, which are the sine qua non of growth and development. But the state is spending 86 per cent of its new borrowing to repay old loans. But legacy debt is not the only burden the AAM regime is condemned to bear; it is doing its own bit—more than a bit actually—to augment the burden. It continued its tryst with freebies. Unsurprisingly, the economy continues to underperform, growing at a pace lower than the national average. Punjab's agriculture, once booming which made the state the breadbasket of the nation, is worse than languishing. Subsidy-oriented and MSP-based farm policies, both of the Centre and the state, have introduced distortions in the farm sectors and made it adopt anti-environment practices like stubble burning and drawing excessive groundwater. There is scarcely any spark in the industrial sector; the state rarely appears on the manufacturing map of India. And then there are drugs. Early this month, the Punjab and Haryana High Court highlighted the dangerous ramifications of the use of cocaine, heroin, etc. Justice Sumeet Goel warned that the crisis is no longer confined to personal addiction but has begun to threaten public order, national security, and the rule of law itself. 'It is the considered view of this Court that cases pertaining to the drug menace, especially those involving manufactured drugs, must be dealt with the utmost strictness and resolve," the High Court declared. This, four months after the Punjab government set a three-month deadline to declare the state free from drugs! Chief Minister Singh Mann called the time of that decision 'a historic moment as the state government has adopted a zero-tolerance policy against drugs and is launching a crusade against this menace." Only if government decisions and announcements could transform the world into a paradise! Since the AAP government in Punjab has failed to save the state and its people from various menaces, it has now decided to shield religion and gods. Sacrilege has long been an emotionally-charged issue in Punjab. There was an incident of sacrilege of the Guru Granth Sahib at Bargari in 2015. This badly hurt the electoral prospects of the Shiromani Akali Dal-BJP government; specifically, it hurt the Akali Dal; the party is yet to fully recover from it. Since then, successive governments have made repeated efforts to introduce laws mandating harsher penalties for sacrilege. CM Mann has emphasised that while the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) includes specific provisions related to religious places, it does not explicitly address Sikh scriptures. He believes that since this issue falls under the Concurrent List, the state has the jurisdiction to frame its own legislation on the matter. Mann and his government will be better advised to—instead of spending time and energy on constitutional and legal minutiae—focus on fiscal prudence, a sound economic policy framework, and good governance. The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 09, 2025, 19:30 IST News opinion Opinion | Sentimentalism Is Poor Substitute For Good Governance Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
17 minutes ago
- News18
Reign Of ‘Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy
Last Updated: Only grounded, objective criteria - threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity - should govern permissible restrictions. The Supreme Court has rightly slammed the Karnataka government and the state film chamber for siding with the enemies of free speech. The apex court was aghast that no action was taken against those who threatened violence over the release of actor-politician Kamal Haasan's movie, Thug Life. The state government told the court that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film and also pledged to provide full security if the producers chose to release it. It was heartening to see in this case that the SC not just gave relief to the Thug Life makers but also wanted action against those who had issued threats. The apex court Bench, headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing petitions on June 19 filed by the Thug Life producer and a third party seeking guidelines on hate speech and threats of violence. Thug Life was scheduled for release in Karnataka on June 5, but got embroiled in controversy following Haasan's comment that the Kannada language was 'born out of Tamil." The comment was widely resented by pro-Kannada groups, which demanded an apology from Haasan. Taking a brave stance, he refused to apologise, despite the threat of imminent commercial losses because of the non-release of the movie in the state. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) also took a tough stand, saying that Thug Life would not be released without an apology from Haasan. When Haasan approached the Karnataka High Court, it chided him for his remarks and asked him to apologise. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it not only criticised the Karnataka government but also reprimanded the state High Court for having urged Haasan to apologise. 'There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say 'express an apology'? That is not its role," the SC said. On June 17, the Supreme Court pointed out that the rule of law requires a person to be able to release a film that has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court warned the state that it could not allow 'mobs and vigilante groups to take over," asserting that public sentiment should not override legal rights. It was only after the SC snub that the Karnataka government pledged to maintain law and order and ensure the peaceful release of Thug Life. The government clarified that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film's release and would provide necessary protection and security. This was not the first case in which the adversaries of free speech exploited the notion of 'hurt sentiments" to justify censorship. Public intellectuals assist them by raising the wrong questions, by debating whether protests over a film, book, or song are justified, and by asking whether someone's feelings were really hurt. They should be asking instead: can hurt sentiments be a basis for banning anything? Under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, freedom of expression may be regulated only by 'reasonable restrictions" for state security, friendly relations, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to offend. But nowhere does the Constitution permit restrictions based solely on hurt sentiments or feelings. The distinction is vital: while reasons can be scrutinized and debated objectively, sentiments are personal and cannot be uniformly measured or validated. Dictionaries define 'sentiment" as emotional attitudes or opinions influenced by feeling, and 'feeling" as unreasoned emotional reactions. By their nature, these are subjective—what deeply offends one group may leave another unmoved. Take, for example, the case of M.F. Husain: some Hindus found his work as hurtful, while others didn't. It must be mentioned here that the anti-blasphemy law, Section 299 of BNS, is used to gag free speech. Section 299 (which was earlier Section 295A of the IPC) says: 'Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 299 is logically untenable as it criminalises speech based on feelings, which—as we mentioned earlier—are subjective. Therefore, it is antithetical to India's constitutional spirit as it imposes vague restrictions on freedom of expression. The extant court cases are symptomatic of the systemic toxicity that sentimentalism has generated over the decades. Sentimentalism, along with its sibling sanctimoniousness, has supplanted reason in public discourse and political debate. Ranting, canting demagogues and intellectuals set the agenda, resulting in the silencing of dissent, throttling of creativity, and often atrocities against those who speak out—all in the name of soothing 'hurt sentiments.' This trend must be reversed. As Justice Bhuyan said, 'There is no end to hurt sentiments in India. If a stand-up comedian says something, sentiments are hurt, and there is vandalism… Where are we heading?" The reign of hurt sentiments must be dismantled from law and public life. Only grounded, objective criteria—threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity—should govern permissible restrictions. Otherwise, democracy will degenerate into mobocracy. The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. First Published: June 26, 2025, 16:10 IST News opinion Opinion | Reign Of 'Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
