'Consider ground realities, can't ignore Pahalgam attack': Supreme Court's BIG remark on plea for restoration of J&K statehood
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, opposed the petition. He said, 'We have already assured that statehood will be restored after elections. J&K has a unique situation. I don't see why this is being raised now. This is not the right time to disturb things. Still, I will seek instructions. Please give us eight weeks.'
Sankaranarayanan reminded the court that in its 2023 ruling upholding the abrogation of Article 370, the Supreme Court had trusted the government's promise to return statehood to J&K. That was why the earlier Bench did not decide the matter of statehood at the time.
The Supreme Court has now given the government eight weeks to file its reply.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘We will do anything to save stray dogs': Protesters urge authorities to step up sterilisation in Delhi
Around 300 protesters from Delhi and nearby areas protested amid heavy police barricading on the road in front of Ramlila Maidan on Sunday against the Supreme Court's August 11 directive on relocation of dogs of Delhi-NCR to shelters. The top court's intervention came just days after the directive by a two-judge bench sparked massive outrage. The protesters, who alleged that permission to hold demonstrations inside the ground was cancelled at the last moment, marched till the 108-foot Hanuman statue in Karol Bagh after protesting for over two hours. Police personnel stationed in the area, however, claimed that multiple applications had been received, but not a single permission was granted. 'Yesterday, we received multiple calls from police officers who told us that we could protest and that we would be provided security, but when we arrived today (Sunday), they denied permission,' says Rishi Sharma, founder of Bharat Mata Rescue Animal Trust. Ashima Sharma (50), an animal feeder and caregiver, claimed that people want to work with the authorities, but they do not respond. 'We call the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to urge officials to pick up dogs for sterilisation, but they do not respond. If they do, they say: 'The driver is on leave'. But now, they are picking dogs during the night. How?' Another dog feeder from Shahdara's Ashok Nagar, Suraj Chaudhary (46), said that he has got 22 stray dogs sterilised. He has fed them and taken care of their medical bills for 27 years now. 'We will do anything to save our dogs, but I won't let even one dog get picked up from my colony. They are my family,' he said, adding that he was ready to cooperate with the authorities. During Sunday's protest, people also held placards. Some read: 'Stop relocation, start vaccination and sterilisation,' 'Awareness of rabies is needed, not elimination of an entire species,' 'Have compassion for living creatures'. Some protesters used megaphones to raise slogans like: 'Speak with us, CM Rekha Gupta,' 'No dog, no vote'. Sheila Devi in her forties from Gol Market who feeds 8 stray dogs hails the apex court decision as wrong. 'They should follow the ABC rule rather than mass relocating them. They bite only when they are hungry or somebody teases them.' Soon she is interrupted by another protester who says why not videos of puppies being thrown into drains are getting viral, citing they are also kids. 'There is no clue of any shelter, which place, at least tell us where you all are taking them?' she asks. Ambika Shukla, Trustee of People from Animals says dogs have co- existed along with humans. ' 'These dogs have existed here in many areas and lived here even before these colonies were built. Now that people have moved in, the same dogs are suddenly seen as a nuisance — why should they be gotten rid of ?' she questions adding that a dog bites in a state of fear as proven by animal behavioural experts. Shukla adds, 'If the world's apex body WHO clearly states that ABC method is the only proven way to curb dog populations, bites and rabies, why ignore the experts and impose our own uninformed views?' adding that the problem lies in poor implementation of the existing policies. She says that the authorities need to rope in the community feeders, 'the feeder knows every dog. Come and stand at the start of a gully, the feeder can bring every dog. This is more systematic, and efficient. The feeders are an asset, not an adversary,' she says, adding that every dog bite needs to be assessed before categorising it as a case of dog bite.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Chief Justice of India inaugurates new Bombay High Court circuit bench in Kolhapur
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on Sunday inaugurated a new circuit bench of the Bombay High Court in Kolhapur, marking a significant step toward improving judicial access in western Maharashtra. The ceremony took place in the presence of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, and Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Alok Monday, August 18, the circuit bench will commence operations with a division bench comprising Justices M S Karnik and Sharmila Deshmukh, and two single benches presided over by Justices Shivkumar Dige and S G Chapalgaonkar. The new bench will hear both civil and criminal matters from six districts, including Kolhapur, easing the burden on litigants who previously had to travel to Mumbai for his address, CJI Gavai paid tribute to Shahu Maharaj, the progressive ruler of the erstwhile Kolhapur princely state, recalling his landmark reforms such as the legalization of widow remarriage in 1917 and the 1920 law abolishing the exploitative Devadasi system. Chief Justice Alok Aradhe reflected on Kolhapur's rich judicial history, noting that the region once had its own High Court and Supreme Court during the princely era. The newly inaugurated circuit bench is housed in restored heritage buildings from that the swift renovation of the premises, CJI Gavai praised the Maharashtra government's efficiency, stating, 'The State government made the impossible possible. Their effort to renovate and preserve the building's grandeur within 15 to 20 days deserves a place in the Guinness Book of World Records.'He emphasized that the bench was established not only for the benefit of Kolhapur's legal fraternity but also to serve residents from bordering regions of Karnataka and Goa who faced logistical and financial difficulties in accessing justice in Mumbai. 'It's not easy to live in Mumbai or afford high legal fees,' the CJI remarked, adding that inaugurating the bench brought him more joy than even his own Gavai expressed hope that the new bench would match, if not exceed, the standards set by other regional benches of the Bombay High Court. He cited the Aurangabad Bench as an example of success, noting that it had produced four Chief Justices, a Supreme Court judge, and several High Court judges despite initial inaugurated the Itanagar Bench of the Guwahati High Court just last week, the CJI concluded with a forward-looking message: 'I hope this circuit bench in Kolhapur will soon be made permanent, continuing to serve the people with excellence and efficiency.'- EndsTune InMust Watch
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
President, not SC, decides when to seek court's opinion: Centre
Supreme Court 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..."
