SC to hear Presidential Reference on timelines for Governor, President's assent to bills from August 19
The hearings will commence on August 19 and continue through September 10, with the Court making it clear that the schedule is non-negotiable and will not be altered under any circumstances.
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, will adjudicate the Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The Court has directed all parties to submit their written submissions by August 12.
The hearing schedule will be as follows:
August 19: Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments to raise preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Reference.
August 19, 20, 21, 26: Attorney General and the Union of India to argue in support of the Reference.
August 28, September 2, 3, and 9: States opposing the Reference will present their arguments.
September 10: Rejoinders, if any, to be heard.
The Court has appointed Advocate Aman Mehta as the nodal counsel for the Union and Advocate Misha Rohatgi as the nodal counsel for the opposing States to compile and coordinate submissions.
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, informed the Bench that Kerala has filed an application contending that 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the Reference have already been answered by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
He submitted that invoking Article 143 in this instance amounts to an attempt to bypass or undermine that judgment.
Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, informed the Court that Tamil Nadu has also challenged the maintainability of the Reference, echoing similar concerns.
The Reference follows the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that Governors must act within a three-month timeframe when deciding on assent to Bills passed by the legislature.
The Court also stated that if the Governor reserves a Bill for Presidential assent, the President must likewise act within three months.
Importantly, the Court ruled that if either constitutional authority fails to act within the stipulated time, a writ of mandamus can be sought by the concerned State. In that judgment, the Court also held that ten Bills kept pending for over a year had received deemed assent.
The Reference by the President seeks clarity on 14 substantive constitutional questions, including, What options are available to a Governor under Article 200 when a Bill is presented?
Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers while acting under Article 200?
Is the Governor's discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review?
Does Article 361 bar courts from reviewing the Governor's actions under Article 200?
Can courts impose timelines on Governors and prescribe how their powers should be exercised in the absence of constitutional guidelines?
Is the President's discretion under Article 201 justiciable?
Can courts prescribe timelines for the President's actions under Article 201?
Is the President required to consult the Supreme Court before acting on a Bill reserved by a Governor?
Are the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable before a law comes into force?
Can orders or actions by the President or Governor be overridden using Article 142?
Does a law passed by a State legislature come into force without the Governor's assent under Article 200?
Should constitutional benches determine in advance if a matter involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation under Article 145(3)?
Does Article 142 empower the Supreme Court to issue orders contrary to existing constitutional or statutory provisions?
Is Article 131 the sole remedy for resolving disputes between the Union and States?
The hearing promises to be a landmark event, with far-reaching implications on Centre-State relations, constitutional conventions, and judicial limits on executive discretion.
UNI SNG AAB
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
Brazil's Supreme Court judge Moraes defies US sanctions, vows to continue Bolsonaro trial
Moraes, who is overseeing a criminal case against Trump ally Bolsonaro, told a court session on Friday that he will continue to do his job and 'ignore the sanctions' imposed by the US that effectively block him from the country's wide-reaching financial system read more Brazil's Supreme Court Minister Alexandre de Moraes talks during Brazil's Supreme Court trial over an alleged coup attempt, in Brasilia, Brazil on June 9, 2025. Reuters File Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing a criminal case against an ally of President Donald Trump, told a court session on Friday that he will continue to do his job and 'ignore the sanctions' imposed by the United States that effectively block him from the country's wide-reaching financial system. On Wednesday, the US imposed sanctions on Moraes for overseeing the trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, accusing the judge of authorising arbitrary pre-trial detentions and suppressing freedom of expression. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Justice Moraes has presided over the criminal case against Bolsonaro, who has been charged with plotting a coup to overturn Brazil's 2022 presidential election after his supporters violently stormed government buildings following the election victory of leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The US sanctions were accompanied by an executive order imposing a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods, which was also tied to the case Moraes is overseeing against Bolsonaro, an unwavering supporter of the US president. Bolsonaro, a far-right former army captain, and several of his closest allies were charged with plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral loss, in a case that was in many ways similar to accusations against Trump. Moraes said the court would not submit itself to foreign coercion or what he likened to new coup attempts by Bolsonaro's allies. Moraes said the Federal Supreme Court will continue to exercise its role as guardian of the Constitution. 'It will continue to exercise its role in criminal proceedings so that it can provide a final answer to all Brazilian society regarding who was truly responsible' for the attempted coup, he said, adding that there will be due process of law with no internal or external interference. Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, a son of the former president who moved to the U.S. to persuade the White House to intervene in his father's favor, has claimed credit for Trump's policies on Brazil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'This criminal organization's insistence on implementing measures harmful to Brazil, by encouraging the imposition of these tariffs and making spurious and illegal attacks against Brazilian public officials, is aimed at creating a severe economic crisis in the country,' he said. 'But to the dismay of these traitorous Brazilians, that crisis will not happen.' Moraes added that the court would conclude the trial of those accused of attempting a coup d'état before the end of the year.
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi court dismisses defamation case filed by AAP's Satyendra Jain against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj
A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain in a defamation case against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Bansuri Swaraj, citing that merely repeating information already in the public domain does not amount to defamation. The court also criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had initially posted on X the information shared by the BJP MP, saying that the central agency holds the responsibility of sharing only accurate and non-misleading information with the public. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts observed that sufficient ground does not exist for taking cognisance of the offence as defined and punishable under Section 356 of the BNS. The case filed by Mr. Jain is based on 'defamatory' comments about him during a television interview by Ms. Swaraj. The AAP leader stated that during the interview, Ms. Swaraj allegedly claimed that ₹3 crore in cash, 1.8 kilograms of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from the AAP leader's house. The ED also shared this information on its social media handle. Mr. Jain alleged that the statement made on TV had damaged his reputation. Mr. Jain had challenged a trial court order that rejected his criminal defamation complaint against the BJP MP earlier this year. In a strongly worded message, the court said that it is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process. 'Any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism,' the court said. 'The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous, or inten to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual's fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution,' it said. While dismissing the defamation case, the court added that there was no 'willful misrepresentation or malicious intent' of the accused, hence Ms. Swaraj cannot be held liable for the alleged offence of defamation. 'If at all any statement is perceived as defamatory, the liability, if any, would lie with the source agency, i.e., the ED, which originally disseminated the information. The proposed accused, being a secondary communicator of officially released material, cannot be fastened with criminal liability, especially in the absence of intent to harm the reputation of the Complainant,' it added.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ensure ashram-like compassionate atmosphere in jails: Gujarat HC to authority
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court on Friday directed the Inspector General of Prisons to ensure that "a friendly and compassionate atmosphere, akin to an 'ashram' is required to be created within the jails". Justice H D Suthar, while ordering the release of a convict detained in Vadodara's central jail for over two months longer than his punishment and awarding him compensation, stated in his order, "It is hoped that the jail authorities will treat all inmates with humanity and sensitivity, following the Model Jail Manual, and do the needful for the rehabilitation of convicts and prisoners. The Inspector General of Prisons shall ensure that a friendly and compassionate atmosphere, akin to 'ashram,' is required to be created within the jails. " Expressing this hope, the judge quoted Mahatma Gandhi's statement, "The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others." This happened in a petition filed by a prisoner, Raju Ninama, through advocate A A Zabuawala, who complained that his client was not released from prison even after he served his sentence. The HC summoned the jail officials, including the superintendent Usha Rada, and reprimanded them for this lapse. It ordered the immediate release of the prisoner and said, "In this case, the jail authorities, instead of following the clear directions in the warrant, unilaterally reduced the set-off period, resulting in the petitioner undergoing an additional 2 months and 8 days of illegal detention, which amounts to wrongful confinement and a violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such wrongful confinement, stemming from arbitrariness and highhandedness, reflects a complete disregard for the fundamental rights of the convict." You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad The jail superintendent agreed to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to the prisoner. The HC further stated, "Article 51A of the Constitution enjoins all citizens to show compassion toward living beings. Jail inmates, although convicts, do not lose their fundamental rights. Despite repeated opportunities, the authorities failed to act with empathy and continued with their illegal and arbitrary approach." The HC directed all judicial officers, who are jail visitors, that "…they must verify jail records to ensure that no undertrial prisoners or convicts remain illegally detained even for a minute beyond the completion of their sentence or granting of bail." Further, the authorities are directed "to undertake a comprehensive exercise to recalculate the set-off period for all convicts as per their respective conviction warrants. After due verification, updated admission cards/tickets of convicts and relevant jail records shall be prepared in accordance with the circular dated Aug 1, 2025."
