Delay in assent to bills: Centre opposes in SC Kerala's stand to withdraw plea against Guv
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar deferred the matter after attorney general R Venkataramani sought time.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought to withdraw the plea saying that the issue had become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills.
Mehta said the Kerala government's petition could also be referred to be tagged along with the presidential reference.
Calling it strange , Venugopal asked how could his plea be opposed.
"Why my lords are hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition? There has to be some rationale..this only means both parties will charge money," he said.
The bench then remarked, "We will make it very clear, tentatively there can't be an objection to withdraw."
The matter was then posted on July 25.
On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas.
Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law.
The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received.
Kerala sought similar directions in its petition.
In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature.
Khan is currently Governor of Bihar.
The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared.
Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor.
The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President.
Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued.
The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added.
"The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said.
The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills University Laws Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies Bill, 2022; University Laws Bill, 2022; and University Laws Bill, 2022.
The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.
Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
4 minutes ago
- India Today
Court slams police for insisting on identity disclosure in minor's abortion case
The Bombay High Court has permitted a medical practitioner to carry out the termination of the pregnancy of a minor girl without disclosing her identity, pulling up the police for continuing to insist on such disclosure despite clear judicial rulings to the contrary.A bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale was hearing a petition filed by a gynecologist on behalf of a minor who had become pregnant following a consensual relationship. The doctor sought court permission to perform the abortion, as the pregnancy was at 13 weeks — well within the legal limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 — while maintaining the minor's Meenaz Kakalia, representing the petitioner, argued that forcing the disclosure of the minor's identity would breach her right to privacy and reproductive autonomy, both protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. She cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of the MTP Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, asserting that registered medical practitioners are not required to reveal the identity of minors even while submitting mandatory POCSO reports. While granting the requested relief, the High Court expressed concern that medical professionals still felt compelled to seek judicial intervention in such cases due to ongoing pressure from police authorities.'We are quite surprised that, despite the clear finding of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, repeatedly holding that in the facts of such cases, the identity of the minor girl need not be insisted upon to be revealed, the Doctors concerned are compelled to approach this Court for such permissions as the Police insist upon the doctors to reveal the name and identity of the minor victims. This is nothing but harassment of the doctors as well as the minor victims,' the bench prevent further violations and ensure consistent application of the law, the Court directed that a copy of its order, along with the relevant Supreme Court ruling, be circulated to all police stations across Maharashtra. The order is also to be sent to the Director General of Police to ensure enforcement and avoid future infringements on the rights of minor victims and medical professionals.- EndsMust Watch
NDTV
43 minutes ago
- NDTV
Uploading Burnt Cash Video Doesnt Mean Process Is Vitiated: Top Court To Justice Verma
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed with Justice Yashwant Varma's submission that the video of burnt wads of currency notes found at his residence should not have been uploaded on the apex court website. However, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said just because tapes have been published on the website, it does not mean the process is vitiated and Justice Varma can go "scot-free". The top court said the impeachment proceedings will be held independently in the Parliament, without reference to the in-house report. On the question of delay in approaching the top court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for Justice Varma, said a tape was released on the SC website and the judge's reputation was already damaged. "Tape was released. It was already released, my reputation already damaged. What would I come to court for?" Sibal said. Justice Datta remarked, "We are with you on this for the time being. It should not have been done." However, Justice Datta said, "It does not mean that there has been some lapse in the procedure, which affects the powers of the Parliament to take action against you, because Parliament, I need not to say with any emphasis, it has its own powers. "Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what judiciary says or what CJI recommends. They are supposed to act independently and if, at all, Parliament admits the motion and if an inquiry committee is set up, you know who can be the members of the committee. "Do you think those members, people of high calibre, would be influenced by preliminary report where you will have whole opportunity to demolish what are the findings," he said. The top court was hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery matter. The in-house inquiry panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge. In an unprecedented move, the top court on Mach 22 uploaded on its website an in-house inquiry report, including photos and videos, into the discovery of a huge stash of cash at the residence of Justice Varma who was then Delhi High Court judge. The report contains photos and videos of the cash discovered at a storeroom at Justice Varma's house during a firefighting operation on the night of Holi, March 14.
NDTV
43 minutes ago
- NDTV
Top Court Declines To Defer Framing Of Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav In Land-For-Job Scam
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to direct a Delhi trial court to defer proceedings on the framing of charges against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Lalu Prasad in the alleged land-for-job scam case. In his latest application before the top court, Lalu Prasad Yadav sought a direction to the trial court to postpone proceedings until August 12, when his petition seeking quashing of the FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is scheduled for hearing before the Delhi High Court. Refusing to issue any directions, a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh remarked that the petition pending before the Delhi High Court would not turn "infructuous" even if the trial court proceeds to frame charges. It added that the trial court proceedings, including the framing of charges, are naturally subject to the outcome of the quashing petition pending before the Delhi High Court. Earlier, on July 18, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench had refused to stay the trial proceedings against Lalu Prasad Yadav, observing that it would not retain such a small matter for its own consideration and that the Delhi High Court should decide his plea. Lalu Prasad Yadav moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the top court after the Delhi HC had rejected his application to stay the trial proceedings based on the charge sheets filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In his application before the Delhi High Court, the former Railway Minister argued that no police officer can investigate offences allegedly committed by a public servant where the offence is related to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of his public functions without approval of the competent authority. He contended that the registration of the FIR without such approval was illegal, rendering all subsequent actions - including the investigation, filing of charge sheets, and cognisance taken by the trial court - void ab initio (from the very beginning). After hearing the submissions, the Delhi High Court had granted liberty to Lalu Prasad Yadav to urge all his contentions before the trial court at the stage of framing of the charge and dismissed his plea seeking a stay on trial proceedings in the land-for-job case, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. As per the CBI case registered on May 18, 2022, during the period between 2004-2009, then Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav had obtained pecuniary advantages in the form of transfer of landed property in the name of his family members in lieu of appointment of substitutes in Group 'D' posts in different Zones of the Railways. Several people themselves or through their family members, allegedly sold or gifted their land in favour of the family members of Lalu Prasad Yadav and a private company controlled by him and his family. "No advertisement or any public notice was issued for such appointment of substitutes in Zonal Railways, yet the appointees, who were residents of Patna, were appointed as substitutes in different Zonal Railways located in Mumbai, Jabalpur, Kolkata, Jaipur and Hajipur," the CBI had said.
