Latest news with #Article201
Hindustan Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC likely to take up presidential reference next week
The Supreme Court is likely to take up the presidential reference on the timeline for gubernatorial and presidential assent to state bills as early as next week, even as an internal debate has emerged over whether the matter must be placed directly before a Constitution bench or if a three-judge bench may first hear it and issue preliminary notices. People familiar with the development said that the court registry has been asked to examine previous Article 143 references to determine if even initial hearings were conducted by benches of at least five judges, or if smaller benches issued notices before the matters were escalated to Constitution benches. One of the people cited above said: 'The case will eventually go to a Constitution bench, and that is settled. The only issue being considered is whether notices to the attorney general, solicitor general, and all states can be issued by a three-judge bench initially, or must it be done solely by a five-judge bench.' This person pointed out that there is a view that since the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 involves a substantial question of law, a five-judge bench must hear the matter from the outset. The procedural dilemma arises even as President Droupadi Murmu, in a rare move invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, has sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on 14 complex legal questions following the court's April 8 judgment that laid down timelines for governors and the President to act on state bills. The reference, filed on May 13, asked the court to clarify whether the President and governors must follow judicially prescribed timelines despite the Constitution being silent on such timeframes, and whether such executive actions are justiciable before the courts prior to a bill becoming law. The Supreme Court's April 8 ruling, delivered by a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, for the first time prescribed a deadline of three months for the President to decide on a bill referred by a governor, and held that a governor must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-enacted bills. If a governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the President's consideration, the judgment held, this must be done within three months of its presentation. In that case, which involved 10 pending bills from Tamil Nadu, the court went so far as to invoke Article 142 to hold that the governor's inaction was 'illegal' and the bills would be deemed to have received assent. The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether such 'deemed assent' is constitutionally valid, and whether the Supreme Court can impose procedural directions on the President or governors. It questioned whether Article 142 can be used to override express constitutional provisions, and whether the President's discretion under Article 201 can be subject to timelines or judicial review. The reference also raised doubts over whether the April 8 judgment should have been decided by a larger bench, since Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates that substantial questions of law must be heard by at least five judges. 'This concern is being looked into seriously, and the registry's review of precedent is crucial to determine how to proceed procedurally,' said another person familiar with the internal discussion. Since independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the court's advisory opinion on complex questions of law and public importance. While the court's opinion in such references is not binding on the president, they have historically played a vital role in constitutional interpretation. 'The questions go to the heart of Centre-State relations, the federal structure, and the limits of judicial and executive powers,' said a government official familiar with the drafting process. 'This is not just about one judgment, but the architecture of how laws are made and how constitutional roles are performed.' Among the issues raised in the reference are whether decisions of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 can be judicially reviewed before a law takes effect; whether courts can direct or substitute the President or governor's discretion using Article 142; and whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review altogether. Another critical question pertains to whether disputes of this nature should only be adjudicated under Article 131 of the Constitution, which governs disputes between states and the Union, or whether the Supreme Court can resolve them through writ jurisdiction or otherwise. The reference also asks whether the governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the state's council of ministers while exercising discretion under Article 200.
The Hindu
17-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The Hindu Morning Digest: May 17, 2025
After Vijay Shah, M.P. Deputy CM's 'Forces bowing down to Modi' remarks spark row; Congress demands dismissal Even as a controversy has erupted over Madhya Pradesh Minister Vijay Shah's inflammatory remarks on Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, State Deputy Chief Minister Jagdish Devda courted a row on Friday (May 16, 2025) after he made 'insulting' statements on the armed forces, saying that the personnel 'bowed down at the feet of Prime Minister Narendra Modi' for his leadership during Operation Sindoor. Pakistan Foreign Minister calls for 'composite dialogue' with India to address contentious issues Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has called for a 'composite dialogue' with India to address the contentious issues between the two sides. India made it clear that it will have a dialogue with Pakistan only on the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the issue of terrorism. Supreme Court's three-month timeline in Tamil Nadu Governor verdict was adopted from Centre's own guidelines The Centre, through the means of a Presidential Reference, has questioned the Supreme Court's decision in the Tamil Nadu Governor case to 'impose' a three-month timeline for the President to decide on State legislations reserved for consideration under Article 201 by State Governors. However, the Supreme Court's April 8, 2025 judgment made it clear that it was merely adopting guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through two back-to-back Office Memorandums (OMs) issued in 2016 fixing a three-month timeline for the President. Neeraj Chopra finally breaches 90m but finishes 2nd in Doha DL in 'bitter-sweet' contest Neeraj Chopra finally breached the elusive 90m frontier with a 90.23m throw but the trailblazing Indian had to settle for a second place behind Germany's Julian Weber in a dramatic men's javelin contest at the Doha leg of the prestigious Diamond League Meeting series here on Friday. Nagpur woman goes missing in village along LoC in Kargil Police in Ladakh have intensified search for a 36-year-old woman from Nagpur who went missing from one of the last villages in Kargil along the Line of Control (LoC) on May 14. Though her whereabouts were not known yet, police officials said that the woman had tried to cross over to Pakistan near Amritsar border in Punjab in March this year. She was stopped by the Border Security Force (BSF) then, the officials said. Turkish firm Celebi moves Delhi HC against revoking of security clearance Turkish company Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd on Friday (May 16, 2025) moved the Delhi High Court against the decision of aviation watchdog BCAS revoking its security clearance in the 'interest of national security'. NIA conducts searches at 15 locations linked to Babbar Khalsa International in Punjab The National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Friday (May 16, 2025) conducted searches on 15 locations linked to banned Khalistani terror outfit Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) in different parts of Punjab, in connection with the grenade attack on a police station in Gurdaspur last December. Russia, Ukraine agree to swap prisoners, fail to reach truce Russia and Ukraine agreed a large-scale prisoner exchange, said they would trade ideas on a possible ceasefire and discussed a potential meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin in their first direct talks in over three years on Friday (May 16, 2025). India to do whatever is necessary to build ties with Afghanistan: officials A day after External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar held a telephone conversation with the 'acting Afghan Foreign Minister,' Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi, officials in New Delhi asserted that India will undertake 'bold moves' on Afghanistan and 'do whatever is necessary' in the near future to establish stronger relations with the Taliban-ruled state.
The Hindu
16-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
SC's three-month timelimit in TN Governor verdict was adopted from the Centre's own guidelines to avert delay on State Bills
The Centre, through the means of a Presidential Reference, has questioned the Supreme Court's decision in the Tamil Nadu Governor case to 'impose' a three-month timeline for the President to decide on State legislations reserved for consideration under Article 201 by State Governors. The Reference wants the Supreme Court to answer whether a timelimit could be imposed through a judicial order on the President when the Constitution did not prescribe one under Article 201. However, the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment made it clear that it was merely adopting guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through two back-to-back Office Memorandums (OMs) issued in 2016 fixing a three-month timeline for the President. 'We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the aforesaid guidelines, and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received,' Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who had observed in the Supreme Court verdict. The recommendations made by the Sarakaria and Punchhi Commissions and the guidelines framed by the Central government had collectively called for expediency in the disposal of references made by Governors to the President under Article 201. The first OM of February 4, 2016, reproduced in the pages of the judgment, highlighted the 'undue delay' caused in taking a final decision on State Bills despite clear guidelines. 'A time limit of maximum three months be strictly adhered to for finalising the Bills after their receipt from the State governments,' the OM said. 'The aforesaid memorandum indicates that the procedure involved after a reference is made to the President by the Governor…' the judgment explained. The court detailed that the MHA, as the nodal Ministry, would refer the substantive issues involved in a State Bill to the appropriate Ministry at the Centre. Issues pertaining to the Bill's language, drafting or constitutional validity would be referred to the Union Law Ministry. The Ministry concerned with the substantive issues must report back to the MHA within 15 days. If there was a delay, the Ministry concerned must assign reasons for it. Any failure to do so within a maximum period of a month, would be understood to mean that it had no comments to offer. 'A perusal of the OM makes it clear that a timeline of three months has been prescribed for the decision on Bills reserved for the President. A time limit of three weeks has been prescribed for the disposal of ordinances of an urgent nature,' Justice Pardiwala interpreted. The second OM, also issued on February 4, 2016, said that objections, if any raised by the Ministry concerned with the substantive issues regarding a State Bill, must be shared with the State government in question for its views or further clarifications. 'This is done with the object of apprising the Central Ministry of the clarifications of the State government on the matter. A time-limit of one month has been prescribed for the same,' the judgment had said. The State government had to cooperate with the one-month timeline, the court said, as delay would have the 'ripple effect' of postponing the decision of the Centre on the matter. 'The idea of imposing timelines on the various stakeholders would not be antithetical or alien to the procedure that surrounds the discharge of constitutional functions under Article 201. The existence of the two Office Memorandums further substantiates such an interpretation. Afterall, no memorandum which is contrary to the substance and spirit of Article 201 can be allowed to command any procedure between the Union and the States The factum of its existence and acceptance reveals that the requirement of expeditious or even a strict time-bound action would be consistent with the aim and object of Article 201,' Justice Pardiwala had reasoned in the judgment.
Hindustan Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Experts weigh in on President's move
The Supreme Court's April 8 judgment directing the President and Governors to act within a time-bound framework on bills passed by state legislatures has sparked an extraordinary constitutional moment. In a rare invocation of Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Court's advisory opinion on whether it is constitutionally permissible for the judiciary to prescribe such timelines? The reference, made following advice of the council of ministers, questions whether the President's discretion under Article 201 is justiciable in the absence of explicit constitutional timelines. The development has led to a flurry of reactions from constitutional experts, many of whom view the move as legally fraught and politically charged. Justice PN Prakash, former judge of the Madras High Court, said, 'judgments exist which make it clear that a presidential reference cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a judgment already delivered.' He added that many of the questions raised in the reference, including the maintainability of timelines and the propriety of a two-judge bench deciding such a significant matter, had already been argued before the Supreme Court. 'This is not the President acting suo motu. She acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers,' he noted, underlining the political significance of the move. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan observed that while presidential references are not uncommon, the context of this one is unprecedented. 'Most earlier references, like on judicial appointments or the Hindu Code Bill, arose in a constitutional vacuum, not in reaction to an active judgment. Here, you are asking the very institution that passed the order to opine on its correctness, albeit indirectly,' he said. He also flagged concerns about the reference's timing, noting that it was sent on the same day that the new Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai was sworn in. 'The timing was terrible.' While the Supreme Court is not bound to answer every reference, as Article 143(1) uses the word 'may', the implications of this advisory opinion could be profound. Alok Prasanna Kumar, lawyer and co-founder, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said, 'We've been here before,' referring to the 2011 Presidential Reference on the 2G spectrum case, when the government sought a clarification without contesting the judgment itself. However, Kumar stressed that this time, the stakes are higher. 'The court didn't just issue guidelines for the Governor (in its April 8 order). It went a step further and said a mandamus could be issued. That's a new constitutional frontier.'It also extended the same to the President. The April 8 ruling, in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, came after an unprecedented standoff between the state government and Governor RN Ravi, who delayed assent to 12 bills, triggering a constitutional crisis. The Court, invoking Article 142, declared that the bills had become law and directed the Governor to act within a specific timeframe. It also set timelines for Governors and the President to deal with state bills. While many welcomed the Court's effort to check gubernatorial overreach, the directive to the President raised eyebrows. 'Can the Court issue a writ of mandamus to the President, who is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?' Kumar asked. While the Court may only be directing the President to act, not prescribing how to act, this creates a novel constitutional arrangement. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar said the reference was wholly unwarranted. 'Instead, they could have taken it in their stride and said okay, the Governor will give an assent in say three months or six months. Instead, they are treating it like an attack on the authority of the Governor of the President.' The reference also has implications for the broader structure of Indian federalism. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra framed the issue in terms of the citizen's right to good governance. 'This is not just a tussle between institutions,' he argued. 'It's about whether a Governor or the President can paralyse governance by sitting indefinitely on legislation. That has real consequences for the rights of citizens, who elect governments to legislate and govern.' Luthra's concerns echo a growing sentiment that the federal balance is under strain. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar had earlier criticised the judiciary for acting like a 'super Parliament' and labelled Article 142, a provision that allows the Court to do 'complete justice,' as a 'nuclear missile' against democratic forces. To be sure, none of this would have happened had Governors stuck to the spirit of the Constitution while dealing with state bills. Justice Madan Lokur, former Supreme Court judge, offered a more tempered view on the reference. 'Legally, the President has every right to seek a reference if there is a need for clarity,' he said. But even he acknowledged the potential constitutional confusion that may arise if a five-judge bench offers an advisory opinion that contradicts the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench. In the end, this moment marks more than a legal contest, experts said. It is a reflection of deepening tensions between India's constitutional institutions. The judiciary, facing repeated instances of executive delay and intransigence, has stepped in forcefully. But in doing so, it may have opened the door to a new round of constitutional litigation over roles, powers, and the very architecture of Indian federalism.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
President Murmu flags SC overreach, seeks clarity on assent timelines
Amid escalating friction between the executive and the judiciary, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key legal questions concerning the roles and powers of the President and Governors. These queries focus particularly on whether the top court can impose timelines on constitutional authorities for granting assent to bills, and the extent of its powers under Article 142 to ensure 'complete justice". The move follows a recent Supreme Court judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which directed that a decision on reserved bills be taken within three months. Questioning the court's authority to set such deadlines, President Murmu asked, 'How can Supreme Court put a timeline when the Constitution does not?' India Today TV accessed a list of the questions submitted to the court. Some of the key issues raised include: -Can the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142 override the constitutional roles of the President and Governors? -Are state governments exploiting the court's 'plenary powers' to challenge the Centre? -Is it constitutionally valid to impose a timeline on the President or Governor to act on a bill? -Are decisions made by a Governor under Article 200 subject to judicial review? In addition to the President's move, the Centre has described the Supreme Court's April 8 order as 'clear overreach' and has requested the formation of a Constitution Bench to resolve the matter. The order in question had set deadlines for the President and the Governor of Tamil Nadu to act on ten bills passed by the state legislature, which had been pending without executive approval. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar also expressed serious reservations about the ruling, calling it an instance of 'judicial overreach'. He remarked, 'We never bargained for democracy for this day. The President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, the bills become law.' The Supreme Court had criticised the Tamil Nadu Governor for excessive delays in processing state legislation and clarified that when a bill is reserved for the President under Article 201, a decision must be taken within three months. The court emphasised that the President does not have a 'pocket veto', implying that prolonged inaction is not constitutionally permissible.
