SC's three-month timelimit in TN Governor verdict was adopted from the Centre's own guidelines to avert delay on State Bills
The Centre, through the means of a Presidential Reference, has questioned the Supreme Court's decision in the Tamil Nadu Governor case to 'impose' a three-month timeline for the President to decide on State legislations reserved for consideration under Article 201 by State Governors.
The Reference wants the Supreme Court to answer whether a timelimit could be imposed through a judicial order on the President when the Constitution did not prescribe one under Article 201.
However, the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment made it clear that it was merely adopting guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through two back-to-back Office Memorandums (OMs) issued in 2016 fixing a three-month timeline for the President.
'We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the aforesaid guidelines, and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received,' Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who had observed in the Supreme Court verdict.
The recommendations made by the Sarakaria and Punchhi Commissions and the guidelines framed by the Central government had collectively called for expediency in the disposal of references made by Governors to the President under Article 201.
The first OM of February 4, 2016, reproduced in the pages of the judgment, highlighted the 'undue delay' caused in taking a final decision on State Bills despite clear guidelines.
'A time limit of maximum three months be strictly adhered to for finalising the Bills after their receipt from the State governments,' the OM said.
'The aforesaid memorandum indicates that the procedure involved after a reference is made to the President by the Governor…' the judgment explained.
The court detailed that the MHA, as the nodal Ministry, would refer the substantive issues involved in a State Bill to the appropriate Ministry at the Centre. Issues pertaining to the Bill's language, drafting or constitutional validity would be referred to the Union Law Ministry. The Ministry concerned with the substantive issues must report back to the MHA within 15 days. If there was a delay, the Ministry concerned must assign reasons for it. Any failure to do so within a maximum period of a month, would be understood to mean that it had no comments to offer.
'A perusal of the OM makes it clear that a timeline of three months has been prescribed for the decision on Bills reserved for the President. A time limit of three weeks has been prescribed for the disposal of ordinances of an urgent nature,' Justice Pardiwala interpreted.
The second OM, also issued on February 4, 2016, said that objections, if any raised by the Ministry concerned with the substantive issues regarding a State Bill, must be shared with the State government in question for its views or further clarifications.
'This is done with the object of apprising the Central Ministry of the clarifications of the State government on the matter. A time-limit of one month has been prescribed for the same,' the judgment had said.
The State government had to cooperate with the one-month timeline, the court said, as delay would have the 'ripple effect' of postponing the decision of the Centre on the matter.
'The idea of imposing timelines on the various stakeholders would not be antithetical or alien to the procedure that surrounds the discharge of constitutional functions under Article 201. The existence of the two Office Memorandums further substantiates such an interpretation. Afterall, no memorandum which is contrary to the substance and spirit of Article 201 can be allowed to command any procedure between the Union and the States The factum of its existence and acceptance reveals that the requirement of expeditious or even a strict time-bound action would be consistent with the aim and object of Article 201,' Justice Pardiwala had reasoned in the judgment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC deadline nears, illegal buildings in protected Aravalis face bulldozers
GURUGRAM : Just a month-and-a-half to go for a Supreme Court-ordered deadline, the forest department and Faridabad administration on Wednesday started a 15-day demolition drive to remove all illegal construction and encroachments from protected Aravali land in the district. Officials said around a dozen banquet halls, boundary walls, gates and farmhouses that were built in Anangpur village of Faridabad were razed on Wednesday. This area is protected under Section 4 (special orders) of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), which bars construction and any non-forest activities in forests. "We have started the demolition drive. We appeal to people to remove illegal encroachment themselves," a senior forest official said. Haryana govt ordered the demolition drive after the Supreme Court gave the state a three-month extension to clear protected Aravalis of illegal construction. SC, in July 2022, had ruled that all Aravali land under PLPA (special orders) should be treated as forest, with provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act applicable there, and any illegal construction should be demolished. Despite clear directives, Haryana over the years did not complete the task, having razed some 30 structures in four villages of Faridabad since the 2022 ruling. The apex court will take up the case next on Sept 8. The 15-day time frame was given to the Faridabad administration after a meeting chaired by chief secretary Anurag Rastogi on June 7. "All unauthorised constructions, including boundary walls — whether built before or after the 2021 survey—must be demolished within 15 days. The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad will oversee the removal of debris, with all costs to be borne by the property owners," read a document on minutes of the meeting. The Faridabad district magistrate will have to submit an action-taken report to the chief secretary, who also said the DM will be held accountable for any delay. Rastogi will hold another review meeting on June 27. On Wednesday, environmentalists said Faridabad was not the only Haryana district where protected Aravali forests have been encroached on. "Although demolition has begun in four villages of Faridabad after nearly three years, the order actually applies to special orders of Section 4 PLPA on all of Haryana, not just these villages. So far, no other districts have initiated the drive," said Sunil Harsana, an ecologist and wildlife expert. After SC's 2022 order, Haryana forest department had carried out a survey to identify illegal construction and found that 6,973 structures – most of them banquet halls and residential settlements – were built over protected PLPA land in four villages of Faridabad. A majority of these were in Anangpur (5,948) and the remaining in Ankhir, Lakkarpur, and Mewla Maharajpur. No such survey has been organised in Gurgaon. But activists allege that illegal construction is rampant in the Aravalis of Sohna, Raisina and Gwalpahari in the city, all of which are also protected by PLPA's special orders.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Judicial activism shouldn't turn into judicial terrorism: CJI Gavai
NEW DELHI Chief Justice of India B R Gavai has emphasised that judicial activism is bound to stay but cautioned that it should not be turned into judicial terrorism. CJI Gavai said power of judicial review should be used sparingly and be used only if a statute is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. "Judicial activism is bound to stay. At the same time, judicial activism should not be turned into judicial terrorism. So, at times, you try to exceed the limits and try to enter into an area where, normally, the judiciary should not enter," he said in response to a question from a legal news portal. Gavai described the Constitution as a "quiet revolution etched in ink" and a transformative force that not only guarantees rights but actively uplifts the historically oppressed. Speaking at the Oxford Union in London on the theme 'From Representation to Realisation: Embodying the Constitution's Promise' on Tuesday, Gavai, the second Dalit and the first Buddhist to hold India's highest judicial office, highlighted the positive impact of the Constitution on marginalised communities and gave his example to drive home the point. "Many decades ago, millions of citizens of India were called 'untouchables'. They were told they were impure. They were told that they did not belong. They were told that they could not speak for themselves. But here we are today, where a person belonging to those very people is speaking openly, as the holder of the highest office in the judiciary of the country," he said.
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
"Will move SC to challenge DDA's demarcation of properties in Batla House area": AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan on Thursday said he would move the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) demarcation of properties in the Batla House area of Okhla. The move followed directions from the High Court's Division Bench, which granted affected residents three days to file individual writ petitions. This comes a day after Khan withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court that had sought to stop demolition action initiated by the DDA. Speaking to ANI, the AAP MLA said, 'The Division Bench has given time for the affected parties to file their writ individually within three days. We have also withdrawn our PIL. People have been living there since 1971, and you suddenly declared it unauthorised and separated it from the PM-UDAY scheme.' '...The manner in which DDA wants to demolish this entire area is beyond my demarcation done by them is not accurate. I withdrew my plea because I will challenge the demarcation before the Supreme Court,' he said. Khan withdrew the PIL on Wednesday to inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the court. The withdrawal was allowed by a division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, which suggested that individual residents approach the court with their grievances. 'In furtherance of the last order, senior counsel on the instructions of briefing counsel seeks permission to withdraw the petition filed by the petitioner, who is a public-spirited person, so he can inform the residents of Batla House to file an appropriate petition before the court,' the High Court said. At the outset of the hearing, the High Court noted that some aggrieved individuals have already been given protection by the court after hearing their individual petitions. The High Court at the beginning emphasised that any adverse order while deciding the PIL may affect the rights of the individuals who are already before the single-judge bench. The court has also emphasised that any aggrieved individual may approach the court like other people who have already approached the court. This issue is not a subject matter of the PIL. Khan had filed a PIL challenging the notice issued by the DDA for the demolition of alleged illegal properties in the area of Batla House in Okhla. The High Court on Monday had refused to grant an immediate interim stay on the demolition, which was proposed for June 11. Earlier, the apex court on May 7 refused to grant relief and directed the demolition of the illegal properties. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the petitioner and argued that they (DDA) are pasting notices on the properties which fall beyond the khasra no. 279. The order of the Supreme Court was regarding the illegal properties within this khasra. The counsel for respondents contended, on the other hand, that the PIL is not maintainable as the Supreme Court specifically directed that the individual aggrieved persons adopt the legal remedy. DDA's counsel also said that the notices issued by the DDA are not generic and are in compliance with the Supreme Court. All the notices were given 15 days to respond. No demolition was carried out during the notice period. (ANI)
