MK Stalin's "Scared" Swipe As Tamil Nadu Governor Clears 2 Bills
Quick Read
Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed.
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi cleared two Bills after a Supreme Court ruling criticised his prior blockage of legislation. The Bills promote disability inclusion in local bodies.
Chennai:
Nearly two months after a landmark Supreme Court verdict pulled him up for blocking Bills passed by the Assembly, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi today cleared two Bills, a month after the House passed them. Chief Minister MK Stalin, whose government won a big victory in the top court in April, said the Governor's assent was "expected" and that he was "scared" the state government may approach the court again.
The two Bills pave the way for the nomination of persons with disabilities to urban and local bodies in Tamil Nadu. Aimed at social inclusion, the Bills will impact and empower over 12,000 persons with disabilities.
Chief Minister Stalin said the Governor's assent was the result of the Supreme Court ruling. "This assent was expected. The Governor would be scared that we would move the court again."
In its April 8 verdict, the Supreme Court had said the Governor's move to block 10 Bills was "illegal" and "arbitrary". The court had then used its special powers to clear the Bills. The DMK government welcomed the verdict, amid a larger debate on whether the Supreme Court can set a deadline for the President and Governors.
The ruling by the bench of Justice JD Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said the Bills were passed by the Assembly twice and the Governor must have cleared them.
Article 200 of the Constitution lays down the options before the Governor when a Bill passed by the state House is presented before him. The Governor can give his assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President. The Governor can send the Bill back to the House or Houses for reconsideration of some provisions. If the House passes it again, the Governor shall not withhold assent. The Governor can reserve for the President's consideration a Bill which he/she feels is at odds with the Constitution, directive principles of state policy, or is a matter of national importance.
In its April order, the court prescribed timelines to exercise these options and said missing them would invite judicial scrutiny of the Governor's action. The court earmarked a one-month deadline for Governors to withhold assent to a Bill and reserve it for the President's review with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. When a Bill is reserved without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, this deadline will be three months. If a Bill is presented to a Governor after reconsideration by the state Assembly, he/she must clear it within a month. Any exercise of the Governor under Article 200, the court said, is amenable to judicial review.
The court clarified that it is "in no way undermining the Governor's powers". "All actions of the Governor must align with the principle of parliamentary democracy."
The Supreme Court's ruling effectively set a three-month deadline for Presidential assent to Bills, too. The court said the President's functions are amenable to judicial review under Article 201.
Amid a debate over whether the top court ruling amounted to judicial overreach, President Droupadi Murmu wrote to the Supreme Court last month and asked if timelines could be imposed on Governors.
President Murmu asked if a Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable -- subject to a trial in court. She cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office.
"In the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?" President Murmu asked the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on the matter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Census 2027 is BJP's plan to reduce Tamil Nadu's parliamentary seats: Stalin
After officials of the Union government on Wednesday said that the long-delayed census will be carried out in two phases before March 1, 2027, Tamil Nadu chief minister and DMK president MK Stalin said that the Constitution of India mandates that the delimitation exercise must follow the first census after 2026. 'The BJP has now delayed the census to 2027, making their plan clear to reduce Tamil Nadu's parliamentary representation. I had warned about this. It is now unfolding,' Stalin said. He further said that Tamil Nadu's main opposition AIADMK led by Edappadi Palaniswami (EPS) 'is not just silent but complicit in this betrayal. It's now clear that he has surrendered to Delhi's domination.' He made the remarks while referring to the Dravidian party joining hands with the BJP in April, 19 months after they split, to fight the 2026 assembly elections together. In March, Stalin led a joint action committee (JAC) comprising the chief ministers of four states and political parties from three others calling for a fair delimitation. They said that the delimitation based on exercise would penalise southern states like them that had brought the population under control. The JAC urged the Centre to extend the freeze on the delimitation on parliamentary constituencies by another 25 years, upping the ante on a contentious exercise that can widen the chasm between India's northern and southern regions. The meeting had representatives from seven states, including chief ministers of Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Punjab and Kerala, and the deputy chief minister of Karnataka. Bharat Rashtra Samithi working chief KT Rama Rao also attended the meeting while Biju Janata Dal chief Naveen Patnaik joined virtually. 'The people of Tamil Nadu are united as one in their demand for a fair Delimitation,' Stalin said late on Wednesday. 'We need clear answers from the Union government.' The next meeting of the JAC will be held in Hyderabad. At the heart of the spiralling controversy is the issue of delimitation – originally scheduled for 2026 – which redefines the number of representatives a state sends to the Lok Sabha on the basis of population. A 2019 analysis by Milan Vaishnaw and Jamie Hintson of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, projected that such an exercise could see the overall strength of the Lok Sabha rising to 848, with Uttar Pradesh alone seeing its tally increase from the current 80 to 143 by 2026. In contrast, Tamil Nadu, which currently sends 39 representatives, could see the number rise to just 49. Kerala, which sends 20, would see no change at all. The 42nd amendment to the Constitution in 1976 froze delimitation based on the 1971 census, to promote family planning and population control. Then, in 2001, the 84th Amendment to the Constitution extended the freeze until 2026. When the delimitation happened in 2008, the total number of seats remained the same but the constituency boundaries were redrawn.
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump v. Hawaii: Explaining case cited in new US travel ban order affecting Cuba and Haiti
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation imposing travel restrictions on 19 countries, including a complete ban on nationals from 12 countries. The affected nations include Cuba and Haiti. The White House cited the Trump vs Hawaii (2018) as a legal precedent in its latest press release. The proclamation, enacted under Executive Order 14161, fully bans entry from 12 nations and partially restricts seven, including Cuba (partial) and Haiti (full), to combat terrorism and national security risks. Trump v. Hawaii upheld the president's authority to restrict entry, a ruling central to the new ban's justification. Trump v. Hawaii (585 US 667) challenged Proclamation No. 9645, Trump's third travel ban, issued on September 24, 2017. It restricted entry from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen), citing deficient vetting and security risks. Hawaii, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and others sued, alleging the ban violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims. The case centered on whether the president's authority under INA Section 212(f) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f))—allowing suspension of entry for foreigners deemed 'detrimental' to US interests—was lawful and whether the ban was motivated by anti-Muslim bias. On June 26, 2018, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the ban. The majority ruled: Presidential Authority: Section 212(f) grants the president broad discretion to suspend entry when national security is at stake, supported by a worldwide review of vetting processes. No Religious Discrimination: The ban was facially neutral, based on security concerns, not anti-Muslim animus, despite Trump's campaign statements. The Court applied rational basis review, finding the ban had a 'legitimate purpose." Dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, arguing the ban was rooted in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violating the Establishment Clause, and drawing parallels to Korematsu v. United States (1944). The 2025 proclamation relies on Trump v. Haiti to justify restrictions under Section 212(f), citing the same authority upheld in 2018. The new ban targets countries like Haiti (31.38% B1/B2 visa overstay rate) and Cuba (state sponsor of terrorism) for inadequate vetting and security risks.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump administration issues total travel ban from 12 nations, partial restrictions from 7 others; is India in the list?
US President Donald Trump issued a fresh proclamation restricting entry into the United States for travelers from specific countries. There is total travel ban from 12 countries and partial restrictions for seven others, a CBS News report said. The proclamation fully restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Meanwhile, there is a partial restriction on entry of people from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. As per the proclaimation, there is no travel restrictions for Indians who intends to visit the United States. In his first term, Trump introduced a travel ban targeting seven predominantly Muslim countries. The policy underwent multiple revisions before the Supreme Court upheld it in 2018. Later, Joe Biden, overturned the ban when he took office, denouncing it as 'a stain on our national conscience.'
