Kerala moves SC seeking rejection of Prez reference
In an application moved a day before the hearing in the pending reference proceedings on Tuesday, the Kerala government pointed out that the apex court's April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the presidential reference in May. The state alleged that the presidential reference has 'supressed' this material fact.
The Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu v Governor case set the timelines for the Governor and President to act on the bills presented for their consent within three months. Pointing out that the Centre has not filed a review petition against the April 8 verdict, establishing it as a settled law, the Kerala government argued that if the Union government wanted to challenge the top court judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative plea in the Supreme Court, and not take the route of presidential reference.
The presidential reference cannot 'obliquely' challenge a ruling of the court, which amounts to 'serious misuse' of Article 143 under which reference has been sought, the state argued.
Noting that the presidential reference makes no reference to the April 8 judgment, the application said: 'The reference loses its legitimacy and seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment, the existence of which, as mentioned, has been suppressed. The reference therefore deserves to be returned unanswered.'
The application, filed through advocate CK Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the top court.
'The instant reference is being used as a device to obtain decisions on these vital issues, without disclosing and by suppressing the final findings already rendered on these issues by this Hon'ble Court, and to get this Hon'ble Court to deliver inconsistent judgments on the issue of timeframe under Article 200, which is not res integra (an untouched matter),' it added.
Article 200 makes the governor's assent mandatory for clearing the bills passed by the state legislature. The first proviso to Article 200 states that the governor may 'as soon as possible after the presentation' of the bill for assent, return the bill if it is not a money bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the state legislature.
The April 8 verdict, passed on a petition by Tamil Nadu challenging withholding of consent on 10 crucial bills, termed the governor's withholding of sanction 'illegal'. The court exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 declared 'deemed' assent to the bills.
The Kerala application said the foundation of the presidential reference is that Article 200 does not stipulate any timeframe upon the governor for the exercise of his powers and functions thereunder.
'This is amazing, and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'. That there is a timeline in Article 200 stands settled by no less than three separate judgments of this Court,' the application said.
It referred to past decisions of the top court in state of Telangana v Governor case and state of Punjab v Governor case, both decided in 2023, which affirmed that action by the governor on bills sent for consideration should be done 'as soon as possible'.
'If the reference itself is based on an erroneous statement, the entirety of the reference, which mainly relates to the time factor, should stand rejected,' Kerala argued, adding: 'The first 11 out of the 14 queries raised (in the reference) are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of TN v Governor decision (of April 8, 2025), merely one month before the reference was made on May 13. The existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference, on which ground alone the reference has to be rejected.'
A five-judge Constitution bench took up the reference on July 22 and issued notices to Centre and state governments. The court had posted the matter for July 29 to fix timelines for hearing the matter in August.
Incidentally, the Kerala government had last week withdrawn its appeal challenging the governor's inaction to clear eight bills pending for a period varying between one to three years in the southern state.
Later in the day, the Tamil Nadu government filed an application in the same proceedings urging the top court to return the May 13 Presidential Reference as 'not maintainable,' calling it an attempt to reopen settled constitutional law. The state argued that no new 'substantial question of law' arises under Article 143(1), rendering the reference an 'appeal in disguise' and liable to be returned unanswered.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Courts can set timelines for speaker in disqualification cases
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that constitutional courts can fix a timeline for speakers to decide disqualification petitions, warning that indefinite delays by high constitutional functionaries defeat the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule, which was introduced to curb the evil of political defections. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that constitutional courts can fix a timeline for speakers to decide disqualification petitions. (ANI) A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai and justice A.G. Masih ruled that while courts cannot injunct speakers from deciding such petitions, they can certainly issue directions to facilitate decisions within a reasonable time—especially when speakers fail to act altogether. The top court set aside a November 2024 decision of a division bench of the Telangana high court and ordered the state's speaker to decide within three months the pending disqualification pleas against three Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislators who defected to the ruling Congress party last year—Tellam Venkat Rao, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender. The Supreme Court had earlier pulled up the Telangana speaker for a seven-month delay in even issuing notices on the disqualification pleas, observing in April that it could not remain a 'mute spectator' to the 'naked dance of democracy' where speakers ensured petitions 'die a natural death.' Reading out the operative portion of the judgment on Thursday, CJI Gavai said, 'We have referred to the 52nd Constitutional Amendment which introduced the Tenth Schedule, recognising political defections as a matter of national concern that undermines the very fabric of democracy… The purpose of entrusting the Speaker with the power to decide disqualification petitions was to ensure an expeditious decision, avoiding dilly-dallying before courts or election authorities.' However, the court noted that the rationale behind the 1992 judgment in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu, which had refused to impose a time limit on the speaker's decision, was no longer adequate in a context where speakers deliberately sit on petitions for prolonged periods to avoid adjudication altogether. 'The authors of the Kihoto judgment could not have anticipated a time when high constitutional authorities would indefinitely delay decisions on disqualification pleas, leaving the petitions die their natural death,' the court said. While emphasising that the speaker acts as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule and is hence amenable to judicial review, the bench clarified that courts cannot pass injunctive orders restraining the Speaker from making decisions, but facilitating directions are not prohibited. 'The office of the speaker as a tribunal is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the high courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution,' the bench observed. Striking a note of constitutional introspection, the court also left it to parliament to reconsider whether the continued vesting of adjudicatory powers under the Tenth Schedule in the Speaker truly serves the legislative intent behind the anti-defection law. 'It is for parliament to consider whether entrusting the decision-making to the speaker is still serving the objective of combating political defections,' CJI Gavai said. Importantly, the court warned that not issuing timely directions to the speaker would 'frustrate the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule,' likening it to a case of 'operation successful, patient dead.' It noted that the Telangana speaker did not act on the disqualification petitions for seven months, and that notices were issued only after the Supreme Court admitted the matter for a hearing. Accordingly, it directed the Telangana speaker to take a decision on the disqualification pleas within three months, cautioning that no legislator should be allowed to protract the proceedings. 'The speaker shall decide the disqualification petitions as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months. No member will be allowed to prolong the proceedings. If any legislator causes delays, the Speaker shall draw adverse inferences,' the court ordered.
Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC asks Telangana Speaker to decide on disqualification of 10 MLAs in three months
The Supreme Court has directed the Speaker of Telangana State Legislative Assembly to take a decision in three months on the petitions for disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs, who defected to the ruling Congress party in the state. A division bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Thursday pronounced orders on the petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) working president K.T. Rama Rao, some other BRS MLAs and BJP floor leader in Assembly A. Maheshwar Reddy. The Supreme Court allowed the pleas filed by BRS leaders seeking directions to the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide expeditiously the disqualification petitions. The apex court directed the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months. The bench also set aside the order of the Telangana High Court that the court can't set a time limit for the Speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions. According to the counsel for the BRS leaders, the bench also directed the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly not to allow any MLA to protract the process of disqualification. In case any MLA attempts to protract the proceedings, the Speaker has to draw an adverse inference against them. 'The Honourable Supreme Court also clarified that the Speaker doesn't have any Constitutional privilege to decide this case and that he is as good as a tribunal,' said Mohit K. Rao, who appeared on behalf of the BRS leaders The apex court also observed that if the Speaker doesn't take a decision and keeps petitions pending for five years, the foundational point of democracy will be disturbed. In September last year, a single judge of the High Court had directed the office of the Speaker to pronounce a schedule within four weeks for the hearing of the petitions seeking disqualification of the MLAs. On an appeal filed by the Legislative Secretary, a division bench in November set aside the single judge order. It suggested that the Speaker decide on disqualification applications as per the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India within a 'reasonable time'. The BRS leaders had approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's division bench order and seeking direction to the Speaker to decide their petitions expeditiously. The main opposition party had appealed to Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar to disqualify all 10 BRS MLAs who defected to Congress since March last year. The BRS leaders had brought to the Speaker's notice that, as per the Supreme Court judgment in various cases, the Speaker has to take decision on disqualification within three months. Danam Nagender (Khairatabad constituency), Tellam Venkat Rao (Bhadrachalam), Kadiyam Srihari (Station Ghanpur), Pocharam Srinivas Reddy (Banswada), M. Sanjay Kumar (Jagtial), Arekapudi Gandhi (Serilingampally), T. Prakash Goud (Rajendranagar), B. Krishna Mohan Reddy (Gadwal), G. Mahipal Reddy (Patancheru), and Kale Yadaiah (Chevella) defected to the Congress party last year.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Operation Successful, Patient Dead": Supreme Court On BRS MLAs' Defection Case
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide on petitions seeking the disqualification of 10 MLAs, who jumped ship from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to the Congress in 2023, under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution in three months. The defections took place after the state elections in 2023, and one of the MLAs had even fought the 2024 Lok Sabha polls on a Congress ticket. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chauhan stayed a November 22 order of a division bench of the Telangana High Court, which nullified the single bench's directive to the Speaker to fix a schedule to decide on the pleas, observing that it cannot permit a situation of "operation successful but patient dead". "We have referred to various parliamentary speeches, including those by Rajesh Pilot and Devendra Nath Munshi, to emphasise that entrusting disqualification proceedings to the speaker were aimed at avoiding delays that may occur before courts," the CJI said while reading out the judgement. It said the division bench had erred in interfering with the single judge's order that merely called for a time-bound disposal of the petitions without setting a specific deadline. "Any MLA shall not be allowed to protract the proceeding. If done so, then the Speaker shall draw adverse inferences," it said. The bench also said that political defections have been a matter of national discourse and have the potential to disrupt democracy if not restricted. Besides, it observed that the Speaker, while acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, is not immune from judicial review "Judicial review power of the Supreme Court and High Courts is in a limited area, but for the purposes of judicial review under Articles 136 and 226/227, Speaker/Chairman, as a Tribunal, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Court," it said. Parliament should consider reviewing the present mechanism for disqualification of MLAs under the Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law, the court said, adding that assembly speakers tend to routinely delay such proceedings against defectors who pose danger to democracy. The Congress thumped the BRS in the 2023 elections. The national party won 64 of 119 assembly seats. The BRS, led by K Chandrashekar Rao which swept 88 in the previous elections, secured just 39 seats, and the Bharatiya Janata Party and Asaduddin Owaisi's AIMIM got eight and seven, respectively. The defections triggered a political row and the High Court was approached after the Speaker was accused of inaction in the matter. The Speaker, however, argued the High Court lacked jurisdiction to issue such orders. Those seeking disqualification said a delay on the petitions would allow the ruling party time to persuade more lawmakers from rival parties to jump ship.
