'Can't Amend Constitution': Centre Opposes SC's Timeline For President, Governors To Clear Bills
The submission comes in response to a SC order in April that prescribed a three-month timeline for the President and a one-month window for Governors to decide on pending bills
The Centre has opposed the idea of setting fixed deadlines for the President and Governors to clear bills, cautioning that such a move would disrupt the constitutional balance of power.
The submission comes in response to a Supreme Court order in April that prescribed a three-month timeline for the President and a one-month window for Governors to decide on pending legislation.
'Even under its extraordinary powers vested in Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of the Constitution makers, provided there are no such procedural mandates in the constitutional text," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued.
In its written note to the court, the government warned that imposing such timelines would amount to 'constitutional chaos" by allowing one organ of the state to assume powers not vested in it.
While acknowledging that there may be 'some limited problems in implementation" of the current system, Mehta said those concerns cannot justify 'reducing the higher office of the Governor to a subordinate one."
Under Article 200, a Governor may give assent to a bill, withhold it, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's approval.
Once a bill is passed again by the legislature, the Governor is bound to assent, but can still reserve it for Presidential consideration if it raises constitutional or national concerns.
The Supreme Court's April 12 ruling, delivered in a case concerning Tamil Nadu, attempted to regulate this process by introducing deadlines for Constitutional heads.
The order drew objections, with President Droupadi Murmu formally seeking the Court's opinion under Article 143 on whether such timelines were constitutional.
In July, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai scheduled hearings on the Presidential reference for August 19.
The bench, which also includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, has asked both the Centre and states to file their written submissions by August 12.
view comments
First Published:
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
39 minutes ago
- Hans India
MyVoice: Views of our readers 18th August 2025
'Vote chori' charge likely to be game changer The Election Commission's conduct and its conduct of electoral roll revision and elections and the BJP's defence of the Election Commission have become a burning issue. The phrase, 'vote chori', described as 'improper' by the Election Commission, now has wide currency. It resonates with the people as 'Bofors' and '2G' once did. Now the BJP and the Election Commission find themselves on the receiving end of the Opposition's campaign for transparency in the poll process. If the momentum that the campaign gains is anything to go by, it could turn out to be a game-change and BJP's nemesis. Few people believe that the Election Commission does not differentiate between political parties. Both the Election Commission and the BJP speak the same language. The claim of 'vote chori' is not an insult to the Constitution, but the fact of vote chori, if proven with evidence, is. More and more people come to believe that all is not right with the way the electoral rolls are prepared and elections are held. The fear of disenfranchise looms large. Voter manipulation is no ordinary crime in a democracy. The Election Commission cannot afford to be seen as complicit in the crime. Even in its press conference held to counter the Opposition vote fraud charge, other than saying that the Opposition is trying to fearmonger and mislead the people and using the images of voters for political gain is unethical and invoking the paramountcy of the privacy of voters to justify its opacity, the Election Commission has given no convincing answers to valid questions and shown no willingness to take corrective action. The Rahul Gandhi-led Vote Adhikar Yatra is likely to bring enormous pressure on the poll body to rise above political considerations and perform its role as it should to restore its credibility and regain people's trust in it as a constitutional institution with independence, impartiality and integrity. G. David Milton,Maruthancode (TN) PM's adulation for RSS is demeaning The Kerala Chief Minister was spot-on in decrying the Prime Minister's public display of his adulation for the RSS during the latter's speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort on Independence Day. The Prime Minister should have expressed his happiness at Indian independence, rising above compulsions. The RSS had practically no noteworthy role to play in the Independence struggle. Every kindergarten student is thorough with RSS' hand-in-glove involvement with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi for which the organisation was subsequently outlawed. Dr. George Jacob,Kochi Kyiv-Moscow direct peace a distinct possibility Though the contents of a high-stakes summit between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on ceasefire in Ukraine remains vague, the nearly three-hour summit in Alaska, ended with Trump calling for a direct peace pact between Kyiv and Moscow bypassing the ceasefire route long advocated by Ukraine and its Western allies seems a distinct possibility. India welcomed the summit terming the pursuit of peace is commendable. Trump's earlier announced 25% secondary tariff on Indian purchases of Russian oil may be deferred. The tariff deadline could quietly lapse to India's advantage. Trump's announcement that India had already stopped buying Russian oil raised eyebrows – since India is ready to deal with any eventuality arising out of the irrational US reaction on India's exports to that country. S Lakshmi,Hyderabad Fabulous fifty for Rajinikanth in Indian cinema The one and only 'Style Mannan (style king) ' and the only ' Thalaivar (leader) ' of Tamil film industry and Indian cinema Shivaji Rao Gaikwad alias Superstar Rajini Kanth celebrates fifty years of cinema this week. Making his debut in 1975 in eminent director K Balachandars 'apoorva ragangal' (the film was released on 18th August 1975 ) the living legend is truly a lesson to be read, inspired and emulated. His ups and downs of life, his super stardom, his spiritualism, his simple life, humbleness and his rising as a phoenix every time there was a low is some sort of a motivational book from which lessons can be learned. His sterling performance and unique style of acting, his mesmerising screen presence, his voice and dialogue, his bond with his fans, his stint as an entertainer on screen - make him the 'Super Style star of Indian cinema'. Many of us belong to a generation that grew watching the super duper hits of this 'young man who never turns old', though he's nearing his 75 this December!'. None can forget his power-packed film flicks like Mullum malarum, Billa, Annamalai, Enthiran, Thalapathy, Hum, Baasha, Jailer and an endless list of around 170 movies in a career spanning over five decades, and this includes films in Tamil, Hindi, Telugu, Kannada, Bengali, and Malayalam making him a pan Indian star. M Pradyu, Kannur
Scroll.in
39 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Why the argument that dog lovers are ‘elite' is flawed
A vocal minority of liberal elites are protecting dogs at the cost of the silent dog-oppressed majority. That's what the central government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, told the Supreme Court on August 14. Mehta was tweaking the Narendra Modi government's favourite line: that the majority supports sweeping and harsh moves, like bulldozer 'justice', and only the elite 'Khan Market Gang' is whining about human rights, civil liberties and due process. What is troubling is that many who oppose the arbitrary and illegal bulldozer demolitions as summary justice are singing the same tune as Mehta when it comes to the Supreme Court's order on removing stray dogs from Delhi's streets and housing them permanently in shelters. They say that elite 'dog lovers' are silent when it comes to atrocities against the poor and oppressed human beings. They share images of children savaged by dogs and declare that to oppose the Supreme Court order is to defend such savagery. The notion that it is 'elites' who care for street dogs is itself elitist, making working class people invisible. Why can't these dog-lovers take stray dogs into their own homes, asked Justice JB Pardiwala, one of the Supreme Court judges who issued the order. This begs the question: what is a 'stray dog' and what is a 'home'? A child in a slum tenement cannot keep her beloved dog in her 'home'. It seems she must suffer a traumatic separation as municipal authorities string her dog up and carry it off, for the common good. Just as she is expected to watch her home being bulldozed to the ground for the common good. Pardiwala's question echoes the one trolls ask me on social media when I oppose the drive to cleanse the National Capital Region of 'Bangladeshis': 'If you love infiltrators why don't you keep them in your home?' When one sees flood-affected residents on television screens and in online images each year, it is common to see someone holding a puppy or kitten above their head as they swim the flood waters to safety. These people can't carry much, they try to take the bare essentials only, but why do they bother to take an animal that is not of 'use', like a chicken or a goat? When the Covid-19 lockdown hit, pourakarmikas – municipal sanitation workers in Karnataka, all Dalit women – asked union leaders, 'Who will feed our dogs?' Many of them have a dog who accompanied them on their cleaning beat. Lawyers in Bengaluru who petitioned courts for powrakarmikas' needs during the lockdown, included the appeal for permission to feed the street dogs. In my DDA colony in South Delhi, there is a dog who came in as an injured puppy. He is huge now with a ferocious bark, but absurdly scared of all humans except Shyam Singh, one of the security guards at whose heels he can always be found. Singh worries: what if the civic body's van comes for Ludo when he's not on duty? A textile worker couple from Mumbai used their belated severance compensation to buy a small piece of land near the seashore in Ratnagiri, where they rent cheap rooms to tourists. A group of us, looking into protests against the Jaitapur nuclear plant nearby, were visiting the area. The woman who sat at the tea shop in front, turned to a big black dog next to her and said something that sounded like a request. He roused and shook his rather elderly self, and she gestured that we should follow him. He led us through the undergrowth all the way to the beach – something he clearly did for all guests. In a Delhi slum, which was recently facing the bulldozers, trade union marches through the industrial area would almost inevitably be joined by the community dogs. Likewise, there was a dog at Ramlila Maidan who would join every rally all the way to Jantar Mantar. The writers of the Mahabharata surely knew dogs – and their eagerness to join 'packs' of human beings on the move – very well: thus the lovely story of the dog who stayed with Yudhishthira on the dangerous road to heaven. The istriwala and the chaiwala are just as anguished by the Supreme Court diktat and terrified for their canine companions, as are those the honourable justices called 'dog lovers'. For them, a dog is a friend and companion, not an object that they bought from a breeder on a whim and might abandon when the novelty wears off. Across the class divide, people volunteer their time, money and care to get dogs vaccinated and sterilised – they do the government's job. The 'dog lovers are elite' discourse is also ominously familiar. When I argued against capital punishment for rape, television anchors demand to know why I support rapists who brutalised the young woman in Delhi in December 2012. When I protest against the custodial public execution of rape suspects by the Telangana police, they declare that liberal elite feminists defend rapists rather than their victims. When I protest the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act then and the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act now to persecute dissenters, I am branded an elite 'urban Naxal' who defends terrorists. And, of course, I am accused of liberal elitism when I protest a judicial order on dogs that ignores the Animal Birth Control rules and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals law, and threatens the civil liberties of ordinary citizens who display their civic conscience by implementing those rules. One points out that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi doesn't even have enough shelters for dogs to recuperate for five days after they are sterilised. How can they make room to house hundreds of dogs? One presents the wealth of evidence drawn from all over the world to prove that capital punishment, fake encounters and draconian anti-terror laws worsen the problems they claim to solve. And one demands that governments implement the measures that have a proven record of lowering rape-murders and violent crimes in general. Just as one points out that mass capture, relocation, culling of dogs has been tried many times in India and elsewhere in the world and is a proven failure. And that the World Health Organization's Expert Consultation on Rabies has consistently maintained that Animal Birth Control and vaccination programmes are the only proven, effective ways to curb rabies and manage stray dog populations. But such solutions do not give the satisfying dopamine rush that draconian quick-fixes provide. Note that in each of these cases, it is the advocates of draconian and violent 'solutions' that appeal to emotions of fear and vengeance, while activists and experts appeal to reason and rely on evidence. Restraint and reason usually lose popularity contests and are no match for moral panics fuelled by mass fear. It is ironic, then, to hear people say that it is liberal elites who want their emotional attachment to dogs to prevail over public health and safety. Justices Pardiwala and R Mahadevan used an intemperate language saturated with emotional vindictiveness. They have shown the way and shaped the script for public outrage and contempt against the law and rules. I worry: why has the new bench set up by the Chief Justice of India reserved its judgement on the petition for a stay on the previous order? A stay order preserves the status quo and is effective only when it is urgently implemented to prevent a potential injustice. By keeping its opinion on the stay to itself, the new bench is allowing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to keep picking up hundreds of dogs all over Delhi. Will the stable doors be closed only after the dogs are locked away and the injustice is done? Kavita Krishnan is a feminist and left activist, and author of Fearless Freedom (Penguin India, 2020).
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'Crimea Already Lost': Zelenskyy Signals No More Land Swaps With Russia Ahead Of Trump Meeting
Last Updated: Zelenskyy, who arrived in the US to meet Trump, said Ukraine had already lost Crimea and parts of Donbas, which he accused Putin of using as a 'springboard' for new attacks. Ahead of his White House meeting with US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signalled that Kyiv will not agree to further land swaps with Russia as part of any peace deal. Zelenskyy, who arrived in Washington days after the Alaska talks, said Ukraine had already lost Crimea and parts of Donbas, which he accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of using as a 'springboard" for renewed attacks. 'We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably. And peace must be lasting. Not like it was years ago, when Ukraine was forced to give up Crimea and part of our East—part of Donbas—and Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack," he said. Zelenskyy said that the security guarantees offered to Ukraine in 1994 had failed, adding that Crimea should not have been ceded at the time, just as Ukrainians did not surrender Kyiv, Odesa or Kharkiv after 2022 conflict broke out with Russia. view comments First Published: August 18, 2025, 08:57 IST 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.
