SC issues notice on President's reference: Can courts set deadlines for guvs & Prez on bills?
A constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, posted the matter for hearing next Tuesday to allow appearances by all respondents.
The CJI indicated that the court plans to hear the case in August.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani was requested to assist the court.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, waived formal notice.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal, representing Kerala, flagged concerns over the maintainability of the presidential reference.
Similarly, senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, noted that issues raised are already covered by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case and said Tamil Nadu would contest the maintainability as well.
The reference comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's recent landmark judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, where the court ruled that governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills (popularly termed as 'pocket veto'), and set a maximum three-month timeline for decisions.
The court further held that if a governor reserves a bill for the President, the President too must act within three months.
It also declared deemed assent for 10 bills pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor for over a year.
The ruling drew sharp criticism from former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who questioned whether courts could direct the President, and described the court's Article 142 powers as a 'nuclear missile'.
The presidential reference now seeks the court's opinion on 14 key constitutional questions, including:
Whether courts can prescribe timelines for the President or a governor to act on bills in the absence of specific constitutional limits;
Whether the governor is bound by the advice of the state cabinet under Article 200.
Whether the governor or President's discretion in assenting to Bills is justiciable.
Whether the Supreme Court's Article 142 powers extend to issuing orders contrary to constitutional provisions.
Whether the Supreme Court can resolve Union-State disputes outside a suit under Article 131.
Whether Bills become law without the governor's assent.
Justices Narasimha and Chandurkar on the bench are also hearing the Kerala governor matter, where the state argues that the Tamil Nadu judgment applies, while the Union government disagrees, contending that the court should wait for the outcome of this presidential reference.
The court will take up this significant constitutional matter next Tuesday, with its decision likely to shape the contours of legislative assent powers and Centre-State relations for years to come.
UNI SNG PRS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
Rajya Sabha showdown: Congress walks out, HM Shah says ‘they are afraid to hear the truth on terror'
New Delhi: In a heated session of the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, the Congress party and other INDIA bloc members staged a dramatic walkout, demanding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's presence in the House to respond to questions related to Operation Sindoor after the discussion. The protest unfolded just as Union Home Minister Amit Shah began replying to the Opposition's concerns. Despite HM Shah's assurance that he would address every question raised, Opposition MPs shouted slogans such as 'PM ko bulao (Call the Prime Minister)', stalling the session and refusing to engage in the Minister's detailed response. "You have to deal with me first. Why do you want to call the PM? You will have more difficulty," HM Shah responded, directly taking on the protesting MPs. Emphasising that Prime Minister Modi was 'very much in office", HM Shah questioned the insistence on his presence: 'If I can respond and clarify, then why insist on hearing from him?' As tensions escalated, Leader of Opposition in the Upper House Mallikarjun Kharge stood up, reiterating the demand. 'The questions pertain to PM Modi. I'm not saying you (Shah) are not capable of answering. But if PM Modi, being in Delhi, does not come here, this is disrespect of the Rajya Sabha,' Kharge said before walking out, followed by all Opposition MPs. However, HM Amit Shah continued his address, calling out what he termed the Opposition's double standards and lack of political will to discuss the facts. He pointed out that the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) had already decided that the government would respond to the Operation Sindoor debate and left it to the government to decide who would speak. 'It was decided that the discussion will happen for as long as the Opposition wanted, but the response would be given as per the government's decision. You agreed to the debate, now you walk out because you don't want to hear the truth,' HM Shah said. In a sharp attack on the Congress party, Shah alleged that the walkout was not about parliamentary protocol, but a strategy to avoid being held accountable for years of 'appeasement politics' that, according to him, weakened India's war on terror. Shah reiterated what he had said in the Lok Sabha a day earlier — that Congress-led governments had diluted anti-terror laws for vote-bank politics, jeopardising national security in the process. 'This is the same party that sought proof of surgical strikes and airstrikes. And now, they are unwilling to even sit through a discussion on Operation Sindoor, which was a powerful response to terrorism,' HM Shah said. Despite the walkout, the Union Home Minister continued detailing the operational success and strategic clarity behind Operation Sindoor, underscoring India's resolve to neutralise terror at its roots — even if it meant taking the battle across the border.
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Tirunelveli caste killing case probe must be shifted to CBI, demands NGO
As there is a chance of the State police's investigation into the alleged caste killing of Kavin Selvaganesh in Tirunelveli being compromised, the case should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, according to A. Kathir, Executive Director of Evidence, a Madurai-based NGO. Stressing that both the parents of the accused, S. Surjith, 23, were Sub-Inspectors, Mr. Kathir, during a press meet here on Wednesday, said it would end up with investigating officers favouring the accused. He questioned the intention of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin and his Ministers who had not uttered a single word about the tragic death of the youth. 'When Mr. Stalin could call and express his condolence to the family of custodial death victim B. Ajith Kumar and the Ministers could visit his family, why don't they show the same concern in this case too?,' he asked. Commenting that Mr. Stalin was double-faced in his views about a separate Act for caste killing, he said, 'When the DMK was in opposition, it insisted on an Act for caste killing, but now, the same party leader refuses it, saying that the SC/ST Act was enough.' He questioned the SC/ST Commission's role in condemning the heinous act. 'As a Commission, why can they not be swift to condemn such a horrific crime against an SC youth in broad daylight?. Their laidback approach is not going to achieve anything,' he charged. The parents of the accused, who were also added as accused in the First Information Report, were yet to be arrested, he stated. 'The precedent the State is setting in investigating such sensitive cases is baffling. When the SI couple are learned to be supportive of their son's actions, why cannot the police arrest and remand them?,' he questioned.
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Forum seeks court-monitored probe into Dharmasthala ‘mass burials'
A group of social activists has set up an organisation named 'Forum for Justice to Women in Kozhikode' against the backdrop of the alleged 'murders and mass burials' at Dharmasthala in Belthangady taluk of coastal Karnataka. They have sought an investigation into the allegations monitored either by the Supreme Court or the High Court of Karnataka. V.P. Zuhra and C.V. Kumaran, functionaries of the Forum, told the media on Wednesday that the Kerala government should take interest in the issue in view of the claims that even Malayali women were among those allegedly murdered there. The issue came to the limelight recently after a former sanitation worker, associated with the Manjunatha Swamy Temple in Dharmasthala between 1995 and 2014, claimed that he had buried a large number of bodies, including those of many women and minors who had been raped and murdered. The Karnataka government subsequently formed a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the allegations, and the inquiry is on. Ms. Zuhra and Mr. Kumaran, however, said that the investigation should be monitored by the court as there was a possibility of the political executive in Karnataka exerting its influence on the SIT. The crimes had reportedly been committed on the premises of a temple whose administration was closely linked with those in power at the Centre, they pointed out. Ms. Zuhra and Mr. Kumaran said that the authorities should ensure the safety of the whistle-blower, who raised the allegations. Statements of all the people associated with the temple should be recorded. The possibility of a joint probe involving the Kerala Police should be explored to see if women from Kerala too were among those reportedly buried. They also said that the Union and State governments should announce compensation for the relatives of the victims. A convention would be held in Kozhikode on August 15 to highlight the issue, where human rights activists from Karnataka would participate. The forum has sent memorandums raising their demands to the government, National Human Rights Commission, and the National Commission for Women.
