Assent to bills: Tamil Nadu govt moves SC, says Presidential reference is 'appeal in disguise'
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, which has sought the replies of the Centre and all states in a week, will consider the Presidential reference on Tuesday and would fix timelines and other procedural details for hearing.
In an intervention application, the Tamil Nadu government said it is "filing the present application for directions from this court to declare that the Presidential Reference dated May 13, 2025 issued by her excellency, the President of India is not maintainable and to return the said reference as unanswered in whole, without prejudice to the arguments advanced by the Appellant before this Court".
It said the President has made the above Presidential reference under the Article 143 of the Constitution of India seeking the opinion of this Court on 14 questions that include the interpretation of the powers of the governor under the Article 200 of the Constitution and the powers of the President under the Article 201 of the Constitution along with ancillary issues.
"It is prima-facie evident that the present Presidential reference is nothing but an appeal in disguise to disturb the settled law and overrule the findings already pronounced by this Court due to which the present Presidential reference ceases to raise any such legitimate substantial questions of law leading to an expediency in obtaining the opinion of this Court.
"Therefore, the Presidential reference dated May 13, 2025 deserves to be unanswered as a whole and liable to be returned," the state government said.
On July 22, the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar observed that the issues raised in the Presidential reference will affect the "entire country".
The Tamil Nadu government in its application further said the Presidential reference raises questions of law pertaining to interpretation of the powers of the governor and the President along with ancillary issues which have been directly answered by the Supreme Court in April 8 verdict in the case of State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu in an exhaustive manner.
It said the Presidential reference was issued by the President merely one month after April 8, 2025 that is the date of pronouncement of the judgement.
"A cursory view of the whereas clauses forming the Presidential reference would reflect that the above reference has been issued to overrule the decision and directions of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu judgement and make it clear that the above Presidential reference is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which is impermissible in law as this court has no power to overrule its own judgements by way of Article 143," the plea said.
The state government said the present Presidential reference is "headless and devoid of merit" and currently, no review or curative petition has been preferred by the governor of Tamil Nadu against the judgement of this court.
Meanwhile, the Kerala government has also sought dismissal of the Presidential reference and said it cannot be used to overrule findings of law and facts in earlier judgments.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143 to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies.
The President's decision comes in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in a matter over the powers of governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government.
The verdict for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of governor, President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
The verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers.
It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
10 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
an hour 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
an hour 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.
