President reference ‘misleading', wants SC to sit on appeal against its own verdict in TN Governor case: Kerala to SC
The Constitution, the State said, does not allow the apex court to sit in appeal of its own judgments, nor can the President vest appellate jurisdiction in the court through a Presidential Reference. The State said the Reference was 'misleading' and 'suppressed facts'.
Kerala, represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.K. 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 apex court.
Quoting judicial precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the State said powers of the Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution have been the subject of three separate authoritative judgments in the cases filed by the States of Telangana, Punjab and, finally, Tamil Nadu on April 8.
'When the Supreme Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is. The decision of this court on a question of law is binding on all courts and authorities. Hence, the President can refer a question of law only when this court has not decided it,' Kerala submitted.
The State pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on April 8 has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the Presidential Reference in May.
If the government wanted to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative petition in the apex court, and not take the route of Presidential Reference, Kerala said.
The State argued the very fact the government has not sought a review of the April 8 judgment, establishing it as settled law.
'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by the court in the Tamil Nadu case, and has thus accepted the judgment…The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference. The President and the Council of Ministers have to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144 of the Constitution,' the State of Kerala reasoned. EOM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
No farmer will be left out of Annadata Sukhibhava – PM Kisan: Collector
Tirupati: Tirupati District Collector Dr S Venkateswar has assured that every eligible farmer in the district will receive the benefits under the Annadata Sukhibhava–PM Kisan scheme. Speaking at the launch of the 2025–26 first phase of the programme held at the AP Seeds office in Srikalahasti on Saturday, he underlined the government's commitment to farmer welfare. The Collector, alongside local MLA B Sudhir Reddy, highlighted that the combined benefit of the Central PM-Kisan and State Annadata Sukhibhava schemes will provide Rs 20,000 annually to each farmer family in Andhra Pradesh. This amount will be disbursed in three instalments – Rs 7,000 in the current phase, another Rs 7,000 in October before the Rabi season, and the final Rs 6,000 during harvest time in January. While the Central government contributes Rs 6,000 under PM-Kisan, the remaining Rs 14,000 will come from the State government. In Tirupati district alone, Rs 105 crore has been credited on Saturday to the accounts of 1,54,908 farmers. The Collector announced the provision of 90 per cent subsidised urea and the setup of a dedicated grievance cell at the AP Seeds office to support farmers with information related to the scheme. MLA Sudhir Reddy noted that over 27,000 farmers in Srikalahasti constituency are availing the scheme. He criticised the previous government, saying farmers had suffered under YSRCP rule, and praised the present government for introducing initiatives such as farm mechanisation, subsidised drones, and storage godowns in every mandal to help farmers fetch better prices. District Agriculture Officer S Prasada Rao advised farmers to complete Aadhaar-bank linking for smooth benefit transfer and to visit nearby Rythu Seva Kendras if funds are not credited. Farmers can also get updates via WhatsApp on 9552300009. Later, a mega cheque was handed over to farmers by the Collector and MLA. AP Greenery and Beautification Corporation Chairperson M Sugunamma, several officials and farmer association representatives attended the event.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Rahul's actions dangerous, says BJP; calls Aug 5 protest anti-democratic
BENGALURU: Opposition BJP leaders in Karnataka have accused Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi of attempting to create distrust in the democratic system by making baseless allegations against the Election Commission. The BJP leader termed Congress' decision to protest against the ECI as 'absurd and height of frustration.' Karnataka BJP president BY Vijayendra told reporters that to inform the public about Congress' 'misleading stand', BJP is staging a protest demonstration at the Mahatma Gandhi statue near Vidhana Soudha in Bengaluru at 10 am on August 5. On the same day, Congress leaders are also staging a protest at Freedom Park in Bengaluru. Vijayendra said Rahul's remarks about electoral fraud are an insult to the voters of the country and against the Constitution. The BJP MPs, MLAs, MLCs, former MPs, and legislators will take part in the protest. They would submit a formal memorandum to the Governor, he added. Vijayendra described Rahul's actions as dangerous and anti-democratic. He said that DK Suresh lost in Bengaluru Rural, and that is why his brother and DyCM DK Shivakumar is alleging election fraud there. In Bengaluru Central, BJP MP PC Mohan won, and the BJP received maximum leads from Mahadevapura and Rajajinagar, he said. He questioned whether the Chief Minister and Deputy CM do not trust their own officers who conducted the election duties, and whether they have control over their own administration. 'Rahul is frustrated after losing elections consecutively for third term starting 2014, and he cannot digest the fact that Narendra Modi has become the Prime Minister for the third time,' the BJP leader said.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Madras HC: Remand orders against BJP lawyers' wing secy illegal
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held illegal the remand orders issued by the respective judicial magistrates in Coimbatore and Thirukazhukundram against advocate D Alexis Sudhakar, the state secretary of BJP's lawyers wing. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan passed the orders recently on the criminal revision petitions filed by Sudhakar who was arrested on the charges of possession of weapons and cheating. Senior counsel Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, appearing for Sudhakar, submitted that he was falsely implicated in a series of criminal cases by the police out of political vendetta and was arrested last year. The remand orders issued by the judicial magistrates were arbitrary and in violation of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of one's choice. He also submitted that mandatory statutory safeguards including service of ground and reasons of arrest and intimation to family members were disregarded by the police officers while arresting Sudhakar. Justice Ilanthiraiyan held that a perusal of the arrest memo reveals the ground arrest and reasons for arrest were not stated. That apart, there is no record to show the petitioner's family was informed of the arrest. The non-compliance of the mandatory provisions is a clear violation, the judge said in the order. He held the remand itself is illegal when the petitioner was not informed of the reasons and the grounds for the arrest.
