Presidential reference case: SC issues notice to Centre, states; timeline for governor assent to bills under review
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and all states in the Presidential reference case that sought clarity on whether the court can set timelines and procedures for the President and state governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures.
A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, also asked attorney general R Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta will appear for the Centre.
"There are issues of interpretation of the Constitution. We have requested the learned attorney general to assist us. Issue notice to Union and all state governments.
Learned Solicitor General will appear for Union. All state governments be served through email. List it next Tuesday. Notice be also served to all standing counsels," the court said.
The case has been listed for further hearing on Tuesday, July 29.
The constitution bench was formed to hear the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. This article allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance.
The reference follows an April ruling of the Supreme Court that laid down timelines for the President and governors to act on Bills. The judgment had also stated that inaction by a governor under Article 200 is subject to judicial review.
The ruling came in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu. The court had said that the absence of a time limit under Article 200 does not mean governors can delay action indefinitely. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had held that governors must act within a reasonable period and that constitutional silence should not stop the legislative process.
The Court had said that while Article 200 does not give a fixed timeline, it should not be used to justify delays in dealing with Bills passed by state legislatures.
On the powers of the President under Article 201, the Court had said that the President's decision is not outside judicial review and must be made within three months. If delayed beyond that, the reasons must be written and shared with the concerned State.
"The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State," the judgment said.
Following that ruling, President Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court raising fourteen questions. The reference challenged the Court's interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. It stated that neither article gives the Court the power to set deadlines and argued that the idea of "deemed assent" is not mentioned in the Constitution.
The April 8 verdict, which was passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, 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 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Protection against misuse: on POCSO Act, adolescent sex
The key objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is the protection of children, but over the past few years, courts around the country and rights activists have called for some exemptions. Noticing a trend that adolescents, above 15 years but under 18, in voluntary relationships and having consensual sex were often being persecuted, the courts sought a review. In that backdrop, senior advocate Indira Jaising's written submission to the Supreme Court that consensual sex between teenagers aged 16-18 years must not be criminalised is a welcome move. She was appointed amicus curiae and her submissions are part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. Her brief challenged the designation of 18 years as the age of consent. She said the only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18, is not a form of 'abuse'. Ms. Jaising called for this exception to be read into the POCSO Act and Section 63 (sexual offences), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. In a 2023 report, the Law Commission had said that it was against changing the age of consent. It advised 'guided judicial discretion' instead, while sentencing in cases that involve children between 16 and 18 years in a voluntary, consensual relationship. Under the POCSO Act and under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the BNS, whoever commits a penetrative sexual assault on a child — who is anyone below 18 years — can face stringent punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and provisions of the IPC and BNS. A 16-year-old is considered a 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and hence her consent does not matter. But caveats have to be put in place so that the broad intent of the law is adhered to, as the Madras High Court suggested in 2021, in Vijayalakshmi vs State Rep. The High Court said the age difference in consensual relationships should not be more than five years to ensure that a girl of an impressionable age is not taken advantage of by an older person. Educating adolescents about the law on sexual offences and its consequences is a must too. Criminalising normal adolescent behaviour is not the way to protect against non-consensual, exploitative sexual offences.
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Clearing the air on ‘citizenship' in Bihar poll roll revision
It is fundamental that unless a person is a citizen of India he cannot be an elector. Consequently, he cannot become a legislator also. Therefore, it is very surprising that some seasoned politicians have raised objections to the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar (where Assembly elections are expected shortly) that citizenship should not be verified. It only demonstrates that they have absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution and the working of the system. Article 324 of the Constitution provides that the 'superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of Electoral roll and the conduct of all elections ... shall vest' in the Election Commission. The preparation of electoral rolls is a continuous process, and is revised from time to time irrespective of there being elections or no elections (Lakshmi Charan Sen and Ors Etc vs A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Ors. Etc., AIR 1985 SC 1233). Clarity on being a citizen Article 326 of the Constitution of India provides that 'the Elections to the House of People and the Legislature of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage, that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than 18 years of age in such State, as may be fixed in that behalf, by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any Law made by the appropriate Legislature' on certain grounds. Therefore, it is clear that unless a person is a citizen of India, he is not entitled to be registered as a voter in any election. Pursuant to the enabling provisions, Parliament enacted The Representation of The People Act, 1950, which deals with the preparation of electoral rolls and delimitation. The Preamble to the 1950 Act reads as follows: 'An Act to provide the allocation of seats in, and the delimitation of constituencies for the purpose of election to, the House of the People and the Legislatures of States, the qualifications of voters at such elections, the preparation of electoral rolls, the manner of filling seats in the Council of States to be filled by representatives of Union territories, and matters connected therewith.' Part-IIA of the 1950 Act deals with the Officers of the Commission which includes Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers. Part-IIB deals with Electoral Rolls for Parliamentary Constituencies and Part-III deals with Electoral Rolls for Assembly constituencies. Section 15 of the 1950 Act deals with preparation of Electoral Rolls for every Constituency under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission. Section 16 of the 1950 Act deals with disqualifications for registration in an Electoral Roll, and in specific, Section 16(1)(a) provides that if a person is not a Citizen of India, he shall be disqualified for being registered as a voter. Further, Section 16(2) provides that the name of the person who is so disqualified, even if registered, shall be struck off from the electoral rolls. Besides this, Section 20 of the 1950 Act also provides who is 'ordinarily resident' in a constituency. Section 21 deals with preparation and revision of electoral rolls, while Section 22 deals with correction of entries in electoral rolls. Section 23 deals with the inclusion of names in electoral rolls, and Section 24 provides that if anybody is aggrieved by an order of inclusion or exclusion, they can prefer an appeal to the authority referred to in the Section. The only period during which no amendment, transposition or deletion is permitted, is referred to under Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act, which provides that no amendment, transposition, deletion or inclusion, shall be made after the last date for making the nominations for an election in that constituency. Therefore, it is fundamental that unless a person is a citizen of India, their name cannot be included in the electoral roll. And if it is erroneously included, it can be deleted under the provisions, as stated above. Under the duties of the Election Commission In fact, it is the duty of the ECI to verify whether the name of any non-citizen has been included in an electoral roll, if a complaint or doubt in this regard has been raised. In fact, to put it otherwise, the ECI or its officers, have no jurisdiction to include a non-citizen's name in the electoral roll; if it is so, it is null and void. Therefore, if an application is made for inclusion or a complaint is received that a non-citizen's name is included in the electoral roll, it is the duty of the ECI to conduct an inquiry as necessary to ensure that non-citizens' names are rejected and deleted from the list. If the ECI fails to do so, it would be failing in its constitutional duty and the purpose for which the power has been granted under Articles 324 and 326 would be defeated. In the same line, if you probe further, to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Member of Parliament, one has to be a voter in a constituency; if he is not a citizen of India, he cannot be a member of Parliament or a State Legislature. In fact, Article 102 of the Constitution provides for disqualification of membership of either House of Parliament, while Article 191 provides the same for a State Legislature. It is very clear under Article 102(1)(d) that a person 'shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament, if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State or if he is under acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State'. Article 191, which applies to the State Legislature, also provides the same. If someone contends that a non-citizen would be a voter, they are also contending that a non-citizen can be a member of Legislature, which is nothing but absurd. Therefore, if questioned, one has to prove to the satisfaction of the authority, that he is a citizen of India, and that he satisfies the provisions of The Citizenship Act, 1955. Though Section 7A of the 1955 Act provides for the registration of overseas citizens in India, Section 7B(2) of the said Act clearly provides that an Overseas citizen of India Cardholder shall not be entitled to the rights conferred on the citizens of India with regard to the registration of a voter. Therefore, the constitutional and statutory scheme clearly provides that unless a person is a citizen of India, his name cannot be included in the electoral roll. And even if he is included, the authority of the ECI can order deletion of their name under Section 16(2) of the 1950 Act. It is relevant to note the decision of the Supreme Court of India (reported in Dr. Yogesh Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. And Ors, 1990 3 SCC 355), which dealt with admission in a medical college. In the said judgment, it has been observed in paragraph 20 that it is only lawful residence that can be taken into account, and if a man stays in a country in breach of immigration laws, his presence there does not constitute ordinary residence. The Aadhaar card and citizenship One more issue which has to be dealt with is whether any person who has an Aadhaar card can be a citizen of India. A reading of the provisions of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, in particular, Section 9, clearly provides that the 'Aadhaar Number or the Authentication thereof, shall not, by itself, confer any right of, or be proof of, citizenship or domicile in respect of the Aadhaar number holder'. Section 3 of the Act, which deals with enrolment, only provides that 'every resident shall be entitled to obtain an Aadhaar number by submitting his demographic and biometric information by undergoing the process of enrolment'. Therefore, mere possession of an Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship, and despite the constitutional requirements, if the names of foreigners are retained in the electoral roll, the rolls to that extent would be void ab initio. G. Rajagopalan is a senior advocate and, formerly, Additional Solicitor General
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Srinagar a paradise, I feel at home here, says CJI
: "If there is a paradise on earth, it is this, it is this, it is this,' B R Gavai quoted a famous Persian couplet on Sunday, saying he felt at home in Srinagar. The CJI visited the Valley for the first time since the abrogation of and the 2023 Supreme Court verdict upholding it. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Speaking at a National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) North Zone regional conference, he stressed the constitutional promise of justice and urged the legal fraternity to work towards ensuring justice for every citizen. He said the chief justice of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh high court should consider establishing a separate bench for Ladakh UT, acknowledging the long-standing demand raised by Ladakh Bar. A day after SC judge and NALSA executive chairman, Justice Surya Kant, launched Veer Parivar Sahayata, the CJI said, 'It is a great initiative and it will provide legal assistance to families of martyrs who have laid down their lives for the country.'
