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
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Justice for Jawans? India's Next CJI Justice Surya Kant Talks About Mission Before Taking the Helm
Justice for Jawans? India's Next CJI Justice Surya Kant Talks About Mission Before Taking the Helm
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
EC's refusal to accept Aadhaar as voter ID in Bihar is 'absurd': ADR
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission's (EC) claim of having constitutional powers to verify voters' citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls contradicts earlier court rulings. According to a report by The Indian Express, ADR also criticised the EC for excluding Aadhaar and ration cards as acceptable proof of identity, calling the move 'patently absurd,' especially as Aadhaar is widely used for passports, caste certificates, and permanent residency documents. 'Grave fraud' in rush to revise rolls The ADR, the petitioner in the matter, argued that the EC has not provided valid reasons for hurrying through the revision ahead of Bihar's Assembly polls. The group described the process as a 'grave fraud' on the state's electorate. The revision exercise, announced on June 24, has been controversial due to its timing and new requirement that voters registered after 2003 must provide several documents to stay on the electoral rolls. This has raised fears that many legitimate voters could be disenfranchised. ADR has submitted its response to the EC's affidavit, filed on July 21. In that affidavit, the EC claimed that Article 326 of the Constitution permits it to verify the citizenship of voters and clarified that being removed from the electoral roll does not mean loss of citizenship. The matter will be heard next on 28 July. Citizenship verification against court judgments? ADR argued that the EC's claim of authority to verify citizenship goes against earlier Supreme Court decisions. It cited Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), which stated that the burden of proving citizenship lies with new applicants, not existing voters. It also referenced Inderjit Barua vs ECI (1985), where the court held that being on the electoral roll is strong proof of citizenship, and the onus to disprove it lies with those who object. ADR criticised the EC's directive requiring voters added after 2003 to produce one of 11 specified documents, saying this wrongly shifts the burden of proof to voters. 'It is submitted that the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process,' ADR said. The group questioned why the existing legal procedures under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had to be replaced with a fresh set of documentation and a new form. ADR also said the EC had not provided any data showing foreign nationals or illegal migrants had been included in the electoral rolls. EC's Aadhaar rejection 'absurd' In its July 21 affidavit, the EC refused to accept the Supreme Court's suggestion to include Aadhaar, ration cards, and Voter ID as valid documents, arguing that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained using false papers. ADR countered that the EC's list of 11 acceptable documents is also open to fraud. It added, 'The fact that Aadhaar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI's rejection of Aadhar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd.' 'Violations' by officials ADR alleged that EC officials on the ground are not following the Commission's own rules. The June 24 guidelines required Block Level Officers (BLOs) to visit each home and provide two forms per voter. But ADR said many voters had not met any BLOs and had not signed any forms, yet their submissions were recorded online. 'Forms of even dead individuals have been reported to have been submitted,' it added. ADR also criticised the lack of a clear process for verifying these forms and documents, saying this gave Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) excessive powers that could lead to widespread disenfranchisement. Why target post-2003 voters? The EC's order says that the 2003 electoral roll is proof of citizenship for voters already registered. For those born after July 1, 1987, the EC asks for proof of citizenship from at least one parent. If the parent appears on the 2003 roll, the child may rely on that. ADR said this distinction was unfair and placed those registered after 2003 at 'a larger risk of disenfranchisement.' It also questioned why the EC had not submitted the 2003 revision order to the Court and asked for it to be produced. In contrast, during the 2004 revision exercise in the North East, only new voters had to submit documents, and that process took over six months (July 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005). In Bihar, the entire process is being compressed into three months -- from June 25 to September 30. 2025 roll already revised ADR also asked why a fresh revision is needed when the 2025 electoral roll was already updated and published in January this year. The group said the roll is regularly updated to account for deaths, migration, and other changes. ADR also highlighted an August 11, 2023 EC circular to state CEOs, directing them to delete names of electors who had died, moved, or were duplicates. The EC claimed the current SIR was being held in response to concerns raised by political parties. But ADR said, 'not a single political party had asked ECI for a de novo exercise such as the one prescribed in the instant SIR order'. Instead, parties had raised concerns about fake votes being added, genuine opposition voters being deleted, and irregular voting after polls had closed. Supreme Court's interim observations The case was first heard on July 10 by a vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. While the Court did not halt the process, it suggested the EC consider allowing Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents, in addition to the 11 listed. The EC was told to submit its affidavit by July 21, and the matter will be heard again on July 28. As of Friday, the EC said it had received forms from 72.3 million voters for inclusion in the draft roll. Around 6.5 million names are to be deleted due to death, permanent migration, duplicate entries, or because the voter was untraceable. Further deletions may occur after the draft roll is published. Between August 1 and September 1, those whose names are missing from the draft will be able to file claims and objections.
The Print
29 minutes ago
- The Print
Retd IAS write to Haryana CM on engaging stalking accused Vikas Barala—‘betrayal of Beti bachao'
In a letter to Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini, posted on X by veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, 45 former IAS officers of the 1986 batch, including R.R. Jowel and Rajni Sekhri Sibal of the Haryana cadre, voiced their outrage: 'We are a group of retired IAS officers, who served in various capacities for over three decades at the Centre and States. We are surprised to hear that a stalking case accused, son of BJP ex-state chief, one Mr Vikas Barala has been appointed Assistant Advocate General by your government. We fail to understand the reasoning behind such an appointment of (someone) accused of stalking a woman as Asst AG. He will serve as the state legal officer, when he himself stands on the wrong side of the law in such a grave issue.' Barala, accused in the 2017 stalking and attempted abduction case involving Varnika Kundu, daughter of retired IAS officer V.S. Kundu, is currently on bail, with his trial pending in a Chandigarh court. The decision to engage Barala, in a list of 95 law officers notified on 18 July 2025, has been slammed as a betrayal of Haryana's 'asmita' (pride) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'Beti Bachao' campaign, by the ex-IAS officers, with calls for its immediate revocation. Gurugram: The appointment of Vikas Barala, stalking accused and son of BJP Rajya Sabha member and former BJP Haryana chief Subhash Barala, as Assistant Advocate General (AAG) in the office of Advocate General for Haryana in Delhi has stirred a massive controversy, with 45 retired IAS officers expressing outrage over what they describe as a serious lapse of ethics. The letter, referring to the 2011 Supreme Court judgment that invalidated P.J. Thomas's appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner because there was a criminal case pending against him, contends that Barala's appointment is as indefensible. To The Chief Minister, Haryana, Chandigarh. Sir, We are a group of retired IAS Officers, who served in various capacities for over three decades at Centre and the States. We are shocked to learn that a stalking case accused, son of BJP Ex-State Chief, one Mr. Vikas Barala has… — ParanjoyGuhaThakurta (@paranjoygt) July 25, 2025 'It appears that your government did not take into account the fact that there is a serious criminal case against Mr Barala, or else he would not have been appointed, being ineligible for holding such a sensitive position,' the officers said. They added, 'This appointment is against the 'asmita' of Haryana. By appointing this accused as Asst AG, you have opposed the slogan of Hon PM's Beti Bachao. We ask you to cancel his appointment immediately, as his continued stay in the position is bound to influence the determination of the case in which he stands accused. We also request you to approach the judiciary to expedite the trial of the case, as already over seven years have elapsed.' The letter was signed by prominent retirees such as P.D. Vaghela, G.V. Venugopala Sarma and Ravi Capoor, among others. All these ex-IAS officers are from Varnika Kundu's father VS Kundu's 1986 batch. Also read: Anil Vij calls gang rape charge against Haryana BJP chief Badoli 'very serious', says party will act Political and public backlash The appointment has invited tough responses from political circles and civil society. Actor and ex-MP Divya Spandana, also popularly known as Ramya, was amongst the first from the world of cinema to express her indignation on X: 'The BJP Govt in Haryana has appointed the accused Vikas Barala in the Varnika Kundu stalking case as Assistant Advocate General of the very state that is prosecuting him!! @PMOIndia @AmitShah @arjunrammeghwal @NayabSainiBJP How did the screening committee approve this?' The BJP Govt in Haryana has appointed the accused Vikas Barala in the Varnika Kundu stalking case as Assistant Advocate General of the very state that is prosecuting him!! @PMOIndia @AmitShah @arjunrammeghwal @NayabSainiBJP How did the screening committee approve this? — Ramya/Divya Spandana (@divyaspandana) July 23, 2025 Her post amplified the scepticism over the screening process which led to Barala's selection despite the severity of Barala's outstanding charges. The Congress party also criticised the appointment and has asked for his removal from the post. पिछले कुछ साल में महिला अपराध के कई मामले सामने आए हैं, जिसमें BJP द्वारा अपराधियों का संरक्षण किया जा रहा है। ताजा कड़ी में मामला हरियाणा का है, जहां विकास बराला नाम के व्यक्ति को लॉ ऑफिसर के तौर पर नियुक्त किया गया है। विकास बराला, BJP राज्य सभा सांसद सुभाष बराला का बेटा… — Congress (@INCIndia) July 25, 2025 Aditya Devilal, the INLD MLA from Dabwali, said in a message on X that those who claimed to be against dynastic politics have today appointed the son of a former Haryana BJP president as Advocate General—and that too, someone who was himself an under-trial. 'Is this the new justice of the Nayab government?' he asked. Haryana PWD Minister Ranbir Gangwa, however, defended Barala's selection and said that the Opposition has nothing better to do, so was making a hue and cry over all issues. 'The selection has been made by a committee constituted for this purpose. The committee has checked all documents before making appointments,' Gangwa told media persons at Chandigarh on Friday. Varnika Kundu, whose 2017 experience ignited countrywide discussions about women's security, issued a tempered but evocative message on social media after media started calling her for comments: 'Appointing someone to a public position of power is not just a political decision, it's a reflection of values and standards. So, perhaps, the questions should be directed at the authorities whose ethics and standards allowed this decision to be made.' 'Our politicians govern the nation; the rest of us are merely hoping that they recall that they work for the Indian citizen.' Frustrated with the slow pace of the trial, she said, 'Despite months of national media attention, (the trial) has dragged on for this long with little progress.' 'Though we are no nearer to a verdict than we were five years ago, I remain confident in the judiciary up until the time of the judgment—but won't deny that confidence has been shaken,' she added in her statement. Kundu expressed gratitude to the media and public for standing by her side, observing, 'It made all the difference—gave me great courage and still moves me to tears.' A high-profile case The issue arose out of an incident on the night of 4 August 2017, when Varnika Kundu, who was a disc jockey at the time, was returning home from Chandigarh's Sector-8 market at 12:15 AM. She spotted a Tata Safari following her. In her complaint, she explained how Vikas Barala and his friend Ashish Kumar followed her, tried to stop her, and tried to force themselves into her car. 'I attempted to take a different route closer to Sector-7, but they compelled me towards Sector-26. One of the accused alighted and reached my car, trying to open the door. It was saved only due to the central lock,' she said. Kundu made a call to the emergency helpline (100), alerted her father, and called Chandigarh Police, which nabbed the duo. An FIR was lodged under IPC Sections 354D (stalking), 341 (wrongful restraint), 365 (attempt to abduct), 511 (attempt to commit an offense), and charges of drunk driving. The case, which was registered in Sector 26 police station in Chandigarh, gained national attention as Subhash Barala was the Haryana BJP chief at that time. Vikas Barala was detained on 9 August 2017, following public backlash, and remained in Burail jail for five months until he got bail from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in January 2018. Charges were framed in October 2017, and the trial is ongoing, with the next hearing scheduled for 2 August 2025, for recording defence evidence. Appointment process Barala's appointment was one of more than 95 law officers, such as AAGs, Deputy Advocates-General, and others, in a notification dated 18 July 2025. The process, regulated by the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016, is one where the screening committee analyses the legal experience of the applicants. Section 8(c) of the 2016 Act disqualifies a person 'convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude' unless overturned or pardoned. A top Haryana government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, justified the appointment, saying, 'According to law, there is no irregularity. Barala is eligible and does not fall under any disqualification.' Vikas Barala and Subhash Barala have not responded to requests on Whatsapp for comment. This report will be updated if they make a statement. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Why UPSC has returned Haryana govt's proposal for promotion of 27 of its officers to IAS
