Supreme Court to consider pleas of Kerala against Governor over delay in approving bills passed by State Assembly
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 22, 2025) agreed to consider on May 6 pleas of Kerala Govt against Governor over delay in approving bills passed by State Assembly.
The Union Government argued that the judgment on Tamil Nadu Governor's case does not cover Kerala's case against delay by its Governor.
Also Read: TN Government vs Governor SC judgment updates: April 8, 2025
Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, both appearing for the Centre, said the facts are different in Kerala.
A Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha agreed to consider Kerala's plea for a declaration from the court that the Tamil Nadu Governor, limiting the time for Governors to clear Bills in a maximum of three months, would apply to Kerala.
The hearing has been scheduled for May 6.
Read full judgement of TN Government vs Governor SC judgment
In the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment, deeming the Bills kept pending by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi to have received assent, Kerala too moved the Supreme Court. Kerala contended that all the Bills that are pending with the President, and those for which she had withheld assent, be deemed as passed since the very act of the Governor sitting on them and later referring them to the President was 'erroneous in law'.
Among Bills the President has withheld assent to are the the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021; University Laws (Amendment no. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and the University Laws (Amendment no. 3) Bill, 2022, which were referred to her by the Governor.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
NGT lists Kukrail night safari case for next hearing on Aug 21
LUCKNOW The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has granted the UP government four weeks to respond to a case regarding the proposed relocation of Lucknow Zoo to Kukrail and the construction of a night safari in the same area. The tribunal has listed the case for next hearing on August 21. Seeking to remove roadblocks in the ambitious Kukrail night safari project, the UP government had filed an impleadment application in the Supreme Court on April 8, seeking permission to establish the safari and relocate the Lucknow zoo to the Kukrail forest area. The plea is yet to come up for hearing. Lucknow-based social activist Alok Singh filed this case in the NGT. He raised concerns over the night safari project at the Kukrail reserve forest, for which around 1500 trees were proposed to be felled. He also moved the SC on April 11, 2025, on this issue. The Supreme Court has given July 15 as the tentative date for next hearing of the case. A detailed project report (DPR) of the night safari, coming up on a 900-acre maple leaf design in the 2027.46-hectare Kukrail forest, was presented before chief minister Yogi Adityanath on November 19, 2024, roughly two years after its digital survey in December 2022. However, the project got stuck due to the apex court's February 19, 2024 order restraining the central and state governments across the country to establish zoos and safaris in forest areas (other than protected areas) without approval of the top court. This order was passed by a three-judge bench headed by former CJI Justice Dhananjay Y Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Encroachers can't claim right to occupy public land pending their rehabilitation': Delhi HC refuses relief to over 350 slum dwellers
'Encroachers cannot claim the right to continue occupying public land, pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as this would unduly impede public projects,' the Delhi High Court held last Friday (June 6) while deciding pleas by as many as 417 residents of Bhoomiheen Camp in Kalkaji. The residents were seeking the HC's protection from demolition of their settlements as well as their rehabilitation. Reasoning that the right to seek rehabilitation, as it is, is not an absolute constitutional entitlement 'available to encroachers such as themselves', Justice Dharmesh Sharma added that 'determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land.' Of the over 400-odd petitioners, the HC granted some relief to around 30 of them. On June 2, minutes before petitions to stay demolition of homes at the slum in Southeast Delhi's Govindpuri were heard by a HC vacation bench, the civic authorities had already started razing down the hutments. The petitioners had challenged orders by Justice Sharma, on May 26 and May 30, where he had rejected the dwellers' pleas for protection from demolition and their rehabilitation. The petitioners had moved the court first in 2023, claiming that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), in 'an arbitrary and illegal manner, proposed to demolish their jhuggi-jhopdis'. The proposal, they contended, was contrary to the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and surveys for their rehabilitation were conducted 'by an obscure, outsourced agency appointed by DDA'. It was also pointed out that due processes were not followed. Justice Sharma, while closing a bunch of petitions moved by the 417 dwellers, ruled, '… it is evident that the interim injunctions obtained by the petitioners have not only hindered the timely execution of the rehabilitation project but have also resulted in a significant escalation of public expenditure, thereby causing financial strain on the State. Even assuming, arguendo, that the petitioners may have plausible grounds to assert a legal right to rehabilitation, a favourable adjudication would at best extend the scope of eligible beneficiaries under the prevailing rehabilitation policy. However, such a contention cannot translate into a right to indefinitely occupy public land or retain possession of their respective jhuggi jhopri dwellings, especially when the removal is in furtherance of a larger public interest and in accordance with due process.' What the court ruled -Among the 417 petitioners, for 165 who were occupying upper floors of the jhuggis, and those who approached the HC without exhausting the remedy of the appellate authority after their claim for rehabilitation was rejected by the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC), the court dismissed their petitions. Such petitioners can, however, approach the appellate authority within six weeks, the court directed. However, the court clarified, such remedies 'shall not stand in the way of the DDA proceeding with the demolition action.' -The court also refused to grant any relief to a bunch of petitioners whose rehabilitation claims were rejected by the EDC as well as the Appellate Authority on the ground that they had failed to produce a valid and separate ration card in their individual names. -Justice Sharma, however, allowed relief for 26 petitioner-dwellers, whose rehabilitation claims were allowed by the appellate authority but were subsequently rejected by DDA. The court directed the competent authority 'to review, reconsider or recall their impugned decisions rejecting the claims of the present set of petitioners within six weeks, as per the 2015 policy, and to proceed with their relocation and rehabilitation in accordance with law.' -It dismissed pleas by 50 dwellers, where the appellate authority had rejected the claims on the ground that their names do not figure in the voter lists for the years 2012-2015, before the eligibility cut-off date, or on the ground that the voter card furnished by them was found to be invalid. -The court also dismissed pleas by six dwellers who were seeking two allotments against one jhuggi despite one allotment already made against the claimed structure. -In the case of one petitioner where the appellate authority allowed the claim but was not allotted an alternative dwelling unit, the HC directed DDA 'to proceed with the allotment of an alternative dwelling to the petitioner within six weeks, as per the 2015 Policy.'
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
