President, not SC, decides when to seek court's opinion: Centre
NEW DELHI: Objecting to the judgment mandating the President to seek Supreme Court's opinion on constitutionality of bills, Union govt has said the judiciary cannot dictate to the President how and when to exercise her unfettered discretion to seek the apex court's opinion and on which issues.
Faulting the April 8 judgment of a bench of justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, the Centre, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, said a plain reading of the President's powers under Article 143 "shows that an absolute discretion lies with the President to seek advice. The term 'consult' means the act of asking for advice and indicates that the President is not bound to do so".
The judgment had advised the President that whenever a governor reserves a bill for her consideration on the ground that it is patently unconstitutional, the President ought to make a reference to SC under Article 143 "as a measure of prudence", given that it is for the apex court to determine the constitutionality and legality of orders and laws.
Ahead of Tuesday's hearing on the Presidential Reference before a five-judge bench led by CJI B R Gavai, the Centre said, "Any constitutional proposition of law that there exists a constitutional expectation for the President to refer every reserved bill to the Supreme Court is contrary to the constitutional scheme". It gave three reasons to repudiate the SC bench's proposition to this effect:
Articles 200 and 201 envisage that the President will apply his/her own mind to decide whether to assent or withhold assent, and these provisions do not mention any role of Supreme Court under Article 143.
Such a proposition presupposes that only the judiciary can decide questions related to the Constitution, whereas the Constitution contemplates that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary each is competent and authorised to interpret the Constitution within their own domain. The legislature considers the constitutionality of a bill during debate, the President or governor applies their mind while deciding whether to withhold, assent or refer a bill and the judiciary decides the legality of an Act in appropriate proceedings.
Such a proposition converts a constitutional prerogative into a judicial mandate in the nature of a continuing mandamus, which is impermissible.
Union govt said the Constitution does not empower the judiciary to examine the contents of a bill that is yet to become a legislation, sans assent granted by a governor or the President.
"The constitutional courts cannot undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a pending bill. It is not possible for the constitutional courts to look behind the contents of the bill at a stage wherein it is a pending decision before the governor and adjudicate whether it requires a reference to the President or not," it said.
It further said a state is barred from filing petitions under Article 32, which is a preserve of citizens to seek redress of violations of their fundamental rights by directly approaching the SC. For any dispute between the state and the Centre, the parties concerned need to approach the SC through a suit under Article 131.
The Centre held, "A state govt cannot file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against essentially the governor of the state..."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
VIT Chancellor Dr G Viswanathan: ‘Education vital for transforming India to become a developed nation by 2047'
The Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) held its 40th convocation on August 16, with Supreme Court Justice R Mahadevan as the chief guest, who conferred degree certificates on the graduating students. A total of 8,310 students received undergraduate degrees, 2,802 received postgraduate degrees, and 451 were awarded doctoral degrees. Additionally, 203 students were recognised for their rankings, and 68 outstanding students received gold medals. Tamil Nadu Police Academy Director DGP Sandeep Rai Rathore was conferred a PhD in Disaster Management. In addition to the chief justice, the convocation was attended by VIT Vice Presidents, Executive Director Sandhya Pentareddy, Assistant Vice President Kadhambari S. Viswanathan, Vice Chancellor VS Kanchana Bhaaskaran, Associate Vice Chancellor Parthasarathy Mallick, and Registrar T Jayabarathi, among others. Sivakumar Sundaram, Chief Executive Officer of The Times of India, attended as the guest of honor and delivered a speech. In the event, student hostels named after Dr APJ Abdul Kalam and Jagadish Chandra Bose were inaugurated. Top non-IIT engineering colleges & CSE departments An End, A Beginning & A Legacy in the Making!!! A remarkable 11,112 graduands were awarded their degrees – including 8,310 undergraduates, 2,802 postgraduates, and 451 Ph.D. graduands – were awarded on the Day One of the 40th Annual Convocation of VIT Vellore.#VIT #Convocation — VIT University (@VIT_univ) August 16, 2025 Dr G Viswanathan the Chancellor of Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) in his address emphasized that the development of education is vital for transforming India into a developed nation by 2047. Top 10 non-IIT colleges and their EC course Dr. Viswanathan highlighted the long-standing demand to allocate 6 per cent of India's GDP to education, noting that only 3 per cent is currently spent. 'State governments bear 75 per cent of education expenditure, with the central government covering the remainder. Tamil Nadu leads the nation by allocating 21 per cent of its budget to education,' he said. Free AI courses for beginners Dr. Viswanathan noted that Indian universities lag in global rankings, with VIT currently within the top 500. 'We must strive to reach the top 100 or 200 globally,' he urged. He also highlighted VIT's efforts in supporting underprivileged students, with 10,000 students from the backward North Arcot region—now divided into four districts with a population of 75 lakh—receiving scholarships.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Can India's Chief Election Commissioner Be Impeached? The Law, Politics And Current Row
The row between Rahul Gandhi and CEC Gyanesh Kumar has revived questions on whether the country's top poll officer can be impeached. The answer lies in Article 324 of Constitution Amid the Opposition's allegations of 'vote theft,' reports suggest that INDIA bloc parties may move an impeachment motion in the Monsoon Session of Parliament against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The move, if initiated, would mark a rare test of India's constitutional safeguards around the Election Commission. But can the CEC actually be impeached, and how likely is it? Why The Opposition Is Talking About Impeachment The debate gathered steam after Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission of presiding over 'vote theft" in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Gandhi claimed large-scale irregularities in Karnataka's Mahadevapura constituency, citing duplicate entries, fake addresses, bulk voters, invalid photographs and misuse of voter forms. CEC Gyanesh Kumar hit back strongly, dismissing the accusations as an 'insult" to the Constitution of India. He asked Gandhi either to provide a signed affidavit with evidence or apologise for the remarks. Rahul Gandhi refused, alleging bias and pointing out that no such demand was made when BJP MP Anurag Thakur levelled similar charges. 'The Election Commission asks for an affidavit from me. But when Anurag Thakur says the same thing that I am saying, the poll body does not ask for an affidavit from him," Rahul Gandhi said. ANI that the party was prepared to use 'all democratic tools," including the option of an impeachment motion. 'If there is a need, we will use all the weapons of democracy under the rules. We have not had any discussions (about impeachment) as of now, but if needed, we can do anything," Hussain said. No formal decision has yet been taken, but the political rhetoric has revived a question that rarely enters the national conversation: can the Chief Election Commissioner be impeached? What The Constitution Says The CEC enjoys one of the strongest protections under the Constitution. Article 324(5) makes it clear that the Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. The grounds are limited to 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity," ensuring that the office cannot be targeted over political differences. This removal process is sometimes described as 'impeachment," though technically the Constitution does not use that word for the CEC. What it does prescribe is a highly demanding procedure that requires approval from both Houses of Parliament, with the kind of majority rarely seen outside of consensus or ruling party support. How The Process Works A motion to remove the CEC can be introduced in either House of Parliament, but it must first have the backing of a significant number of members, at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha. If admitted, it is debated and then put to vote. For the motion to pass, it requires two layers of approval: a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, and support from more than half of the total strength of the House. Even if one House passes the motion, the other must do so with the same majority. Only then is the resolution forwarded to the President, who can issue an order for removal. The bar is set deliberately high to ensure that the Election Commission remains shielded from political vendettas and day-to-day power struggles. Why Removal Is Almost Impossible In practical terms, removing a CEC is extraordinarily difficult. No Chief Election Commissioner has ever been removed since the body was created in 1950. Unless the ruling government of the day backs the move, the Opposition on its own cannot gather the numbers to carry it through. With the NDA holding a majority in Parliament, the INDIA bloc's threat to initiate impeachment proceedings is more of a political signal than a legal possibility. This reality explains why the framers of the Constitution tied the CEC's security of tenure to that of Supreme Court judges, to ensure that the poll body remains independent and resists pressure from whichever political formation is in power. The Current Flashpoint top videos View all The present row is therefore less about the mechanics of impeachment and more about political messaging. Rahul Gandhi has insisted that the Congress's data on 'vote theft" comes directly from the Election Commission's own website, and that the issue concerns not one seat but the entire country's voter lists. The CEC has rejected those claims and demanded proof, while the Opposition has signalled that it may use impeachment as a parliamentary tool to corner the government. Whether or not such a motion is formally moved in the Monsoon Session, the standoff has already turned into a flashpoint. On one side is the Election Commission seeking to defend its credibility, and on the other, an Opposition determined to challenge what it calls 'vote theft." About the Author Karishma Jain Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @ More Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Chief Election Commissioner Rahul Gandhi view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 18, 2025, 14:08 IST News explainers Can India's Chief Election Commissioner Be Impeached? The Law, Politics And Current Row 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.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Former finance minster Buggana Rajendranath lashes out at state's false claims on GST revenue
VIJAYAWADA: Former finance minister Buggana Rajendranath has lashed out at the state govt for making false claims about the GST collections growth rate in the state. He said that state govt's claims demonstrate the extent to which it can stoop to misrepresent a depressing result to make it appear as a stupendous success. Speaking to media here on Monday, Buggana said that the govt stated that GST revenues projected in the budget for FY 2025-26 at Rs. 27,477.15 crores and the GST revenues for the first four months of current fiscal were Rs. 16,754 crores. 'The govt apparently celebrates this extraordinary performance that could demonstrate 61% accomplishment of target for the year insofar as GST revenues are concerned. However, the truth is far away from what govt claims," said Buggana. He said that the CAG monthly key indicators conveys that the GST revenues for the first 4 months of this financial year are Rs. 16,754.91 crores. However, the CAG report also conveys that this figure includes receipts on account of CGST as part of State's share in central taxes. This does not reflect the performance of the State. 'If Centre's share is removed, the actual SGST (State GST) revenues received by the State government during the first four months of this financial year is only Rs. 10,769.55 crores," explained Buggana. He said that the state govt had actually projected the GST revenues for the current fiscal at Rs. 40,718.12 crores, but not Rs.27477 crore. 'Therefore, the % of accomplishment during the first 4 months is only 26.45% (Rs. 10,769.55 crores of Rs. 40,718.12 crores). Going by the budgeted figure, the SGST revenues for the first 4 months in FY 2025-26 should have been Rs. 13,571 crores, against this, the achievement is only Rs. 10,769.55 crores," said Buggana. He criticised the state govt for shamelessly boasting of achievement despite poor performance. He said that the SGST revenues during the first four months of this financial year 2025-26 is Rs. 10,769.55 crores is lesser than the SGST revenues during the corresponding period of last financial year which is Rs. 10,868.09 crores. 'When we compare the year-on-year performance, the SGST revenues have reported a negative growth of -0.91%," said Buggana. The CAG figures convey another important aspect, the sales tax revenues another important indicator of consumption in the State demonstrated a year-on-year growth of only 0.78%, during the first 4 months of FY 2025-26. Another aspect is that the aggregate of the State's own tax revenues and non-tax revenues estimated for FY 2025-26 as per budget documents is Rs. 1,27,702.77 crores and as per CAG report, from which state achieved only Rs. 29,511.03 crores, translating to an achievement of only 23.11%. 'Going by the budget figure, the actual State's own revenue receipt during the first 4 months should have been Rs. 42,563 crores. However, the receipts remained just around Rs. 29,511 crores, which shows poor performance of the state,' said former finance minister. 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.
