Latest news with #ConstitutionBench
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court allows Kerala to withdraw plea against Governor, Centre resists
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 25, 2025) allowed the State of Kerala to withdraw two petitions filed against its State Governor's delay in clearing crucial Bills despite stiff resistance from the Centre. Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, Attorney General R. Venkataramani said the State was withdrawing on the strength of an April 8 judgment in an identical case concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor. 'This is not just a simple withdrawal,' Mr. Venkataramani addressed the court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the court to tag the Kerala petitions against its Governor with a Presidential Reference pending before a Constitution Bench. The April 8 judgment has prescribed a maximum three-month deadline for both the President and State Governors to act on State Bills sent to them for approval or reserved for consideration under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, of the Constitution. In May, the President had issued a reference under the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Article 143 of the Constitution), questioning the court's inherent powers under Article 142 to 'impose' timelines and prescribe the manner of conduct of Governors and the President while dealing with State Bills. 'How can a withdrawal of a petition be tagged with a Presidential Reference before a Constitution Bench?' Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal reacted. The senior lawyer said the State was entitled to withdraw its case. 'But there is a string attached to the April 8 judgment,' Mr. Venkataramani insisted. 'No strings attached... The string is cut,' Mr. Venugopal said. In an earlier hearing on July 14, Mr. Venugopal had submitted that the April judgment had made the State's petitions infructuous. The law officers had countered the apex court ought to wait for the Constitution Bench's respomses to questioms raised in the Presidential Reference. However, Justice Narasimha had himself remarked that it would be 'very, very difficult' for the apex court to stop Kerala from withdrawing its petitions.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court's opinion on a Presidential Reference alter its prior ruling?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) issued notices to the Union Government and all States on a Presidential Reference seeking its opinion on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar indicated that detailed hearings would begin around mid-August. The matter has been listed for further directions on July 29, when the court will finalise the schedule for the marathon hearing. The Reference, made under Article 143 of the Constitution, stems from President Droupadi Murmu's submission of 14 questions following the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling. That decision, delivered by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, arose from a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging Governor R.N. Ravi's delay in granting assent to ten Bills that had been re-passed by the State legislature, and his subsequent decision to reserve them for Presidential consideration. The judges held that the Governor's prolonged inaction was illegal and, for the first time, imposed judicially enforceable timelines on Governors and the President to act on State Bills. The Presidential Reference broadly seeks clarity on whether courts can prescribe the manner and timeframe within which constitutional authorities such as the President and Governors must act. However, Opposition leaders and legal experts have criticised the move, viewing it as an attempt to unsettle the legal position affirmed in the April 8 ruling. They contend that the Union government is seeking to circumvent the ordinary appellate process by invoking Article 143 to indirectly challenge an unfavourable verdict. What does the court's advisory jurisdiction entail? Article 143(1) of the Constitution confers advisory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, empowering it to render opinions on questions of law or fact that are not connected to any ongoing litigation. This provision traces its origins to Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which granted similar powers to the Federal Court of India. The only prerequisites are that the President must be satisfied that such a question has arisen or is likely to arise, and that it is of such a nature and of such public importance that it warrants the court's opinion. Since Independence, this power has been invoked on at least 14 occasions. However, the court is bound to limit itself strictly to the questions referred by the President and cannot exceed the scope of the Reference. The inclusion of this provision was not without debate in the Constituent Assembly. Several members expressed concerns that such an advisory jurisdiction could be misused for political ends. Ultimately, the framers retained it, recognising its utility in resolving constitutional impasses beyond the scope of ordinary litigation. To prevent misuse, it was agreed, and later codified in Article 145(3), that Presidential References must be heard by a Bench of at least five judges.' Can it decline a Reference? Although the Supreme Court has agreed to entertain the present Reference, it is not obligated to do so in every instance. In In Re: The Special Courts Bill (1978), the court held that the use of the word 'may' in Article 143(1), which provides that the court 'may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon', confers discretionary power to decline a Reference. However, if the court chooses not to respond, it must record its reasons. This position was reaffirmed in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), where the court held that a Reference may be declined if it involves questions requiring expert evidence or those of a purely political nature, which the court is not competent to adjudicate. In 1993, the Supreme Court declined to answer a Presidential Reference concerning the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute. Justices A.M. Ahmadi and S.P. Bharucha cited the pendency of a civil suit on the same issue as grounds for refusing to respond. They also held that the Reference was 'unconstitutional' as it violated the principle of secularism, and expressed concern that the government might use the court's advisory opinion to further its political agenda. A similar instance occurred in 1982, when the court chose not to respond to a reference made by President Giani Zail Singh regarding the constitutionality of a proposed law facilitating the resettlement or permanent return of individuals (or their descendants) who had migrated to Pakistan between March 1, 1947, and May 14, 1954, to Jammu and Kashmir. Before the court could render its opinion, the Jammu & Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Bill, 1982, was re-enacted by the legislature and received the Governor's assent. The validity of the law was later challenged through regular proceedings before the Supreme Court. Are advsiory opinions binding? The binding force of advisory opinions rendered by the Supreme Court remains contested. Article 141 of the Constitution states that the 'law declared' by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. In St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (1974), the court clarified that advisory opinions do not amount to binding precedents, though they command significant persuasive authority. Nevertheless, there have been instances where the court has appeared to treat such opinions as authoritative. In Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay (1961), the court relied on the advisory opinion rendered in In Re: The Delhi Laws Act (1951) to adjudicate the question of excessive legislative delegation. A more notable example is R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981), where Justice P.N. Bhagwati treated the legal reasoning in the Special Courts Bill Reference as binding precedent. This was despite Justice Y.V. Chandrachud's explicit caveat in that Reference that the court's opinion were not binding on other courts. The ambiguity persisted in In Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991), where the court reiterated that advisory opinions are entitled to 'due weight and respect' and are 'normally followed.' However, it refrained from settling the question of their binding nature, observing that the issue could be revisited at a more appropriate time. As it stands, any advisory opinion issued in the present presidential Reference would not have binding force. The Supreme Court's April 8 judgment, delivered in the exercise of its adjudicatory jurisdiction under Article 141, would continue to prevail irrespective of the opinion. Meanwhile, similar petitions filed by Kerala and Punjab remain pending before the court. Kerala has sought to withdraw its plea, contending that the April 8 judgment has already settled the law. However, the Union government has opposed the withdrawal, arguing that Kerala's case differs from that of Tamil Nadu. Nonetheless, the advisory opinion in this Reference is expected to carry persuasive weight in those proceedings. Can the court overturn its April 8 ruling through the Reference? In its opinion on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Reference, the Supreme Court underscored that Article 143 cannot be used as a means for the executive to seek a review or reversal of its settled judicial decisions. 'When this 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 opinion said. It further cautioned that it could not 'countenance a situation' where a question in a Reference is framed in a manner that effectively revisits a settled decision of the court. Accordingly, the only legitimate avenue available to the Union government to challenge the April 8 decision would be to invoke the court's review or curative jurisdiction. However, in In re Natural Resources Allocation (2012), the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional bar on its ability to clarify, restate, or even formulate a fresh opinion on a question of law under Article 143(1), so long as the ratio decidendi of an earlier judgment remains intact and the rights of parties in the original case are unaffected. The Reference, made by then President Pratibha Patil, followed the court's decision quashing the 2G spectrum allocation and mandating auctions as the sole method for spectrum distribution. While the five-judge Bench acknowledged that the verdict had attained finality, it held that the legal principles underpinning it could be further clarified. Similarly, in 1998, a Presidential Reference was used to modify certain aspects of a previous ruling on judicial appointments. While reaffirming the validity of the collegium system laid down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), the court revised the composition and functioning of the collegium, thereby refining the appointment process without overturning the earlier judgment. Therefore, while the April 8 judgment is final and binding, its findings on the law may still be refined or elaborated upon by the Constitution Bench hearing the present Reference. Further, the Reference contains 14 questions of law, which mostly stem from the April 8 ruling, but are not limited to it. Notably, the final three questions raise broader issues concerning the scope and exercise of the Supreme Court's discretionary powers under the Constitution.
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Advocate ‘warns of' taking HC judges to Supreme Court, issued contempt notice
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued contempt notice against an advocate, Ravneet Kaur, form making 'scandalous remarks' and 'per se contemptuous' allegations against the sitting high court judges and a trial court judge in her application seeking early hearing her pending case. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dictating the order in open court, took a stern view of the language used in Ravneet Kaur's plea, and held that it not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial system but also attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her matter. 'The reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process,' the judge observed while issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the petitioner advocate. Ravneet Kaur, who argued her case in person, had moved an application seeking advancement of the hearing in her main petition that is listed for October 31. In her plea, she claimed she was being harassed by the deliberate delay in her matter and warned that if it was not taken up 'at the earliest date' she would be 'left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ (Additional Sessions Judge) as party to file SLP (Special Leave Petition) before Hon'ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally justice has been denied… delaying the present applications and main petition just to cause harassment… to put the petitioner under pressure to withdraw the present complaints against IPS Gurpreet Singh Bhullar'. The court reproduced the statement in full in its order and held that such 'scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism' could not be justified. 'Not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism… the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,' Justice Brar said. The judge noted that Ravneet Kaur, 'not a layperson but a qualified Advocate', could not claim her 'unceremonious behaviour stemmed out of lack of knowledge.' Citing a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1955 SCR 757), he reiterated that 'counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court… are themselves guilty of contempt of Court… his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.' The court also traced the listing history of the main case. It was consistently heard since May 29, 2024, before another bench, which later recused on May 26, 2025. The matter then came before Justice Brar on May 29, when it was adjourned at the petitioner's request. It was heard by the Vacation Bench on June 6 and June 18 and was again listed on July 14 but could not be taken up because of a 'heavy cause list of 191 cases inclusive of matters listed specially under the Mediation of Nation Drive.' On July 22, when around 245 cases were listed, Ravneet Kaur pressed for an early hearing, but the bench found 'no justifiable reasons' to grant her prayer. The court even offered her the assistance of the High Court Legal Aid Services, which she declined. Issuing the contempt notice, the bench said the allegations amounted to 'an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts' that 'undermines the dignity of the rule of law' and 'have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.' While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, 'in the interest of justice', listed the main petition for August 29.
The Hindu
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court's opinion on a Presidential Reference affect its prior ruling?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) issued notices to the Union Government and all States on a Presidential Reference seeking its opinion on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar indicated that detailed hearings would begin around mid-August. The matter has been listed for further directions on July 29, when the court will finalise the schedule for the marathon hearing. The Reference, made under Article 143 of the Constitution, stems from President Droupadi Murmu's submission of 14 questions following the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling. That decision, delivered by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, arose from a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging Governor R.N. Ravi's delay in granting assent to ten Bills that had been re-passed by the State legislature, and his subsequent decision to reserve them for Presidential consideration. The judges held that the Governor's prolonged inaction was illegal and, for the first time, imposed judicially enforceable timelines on Governors and the President to act on State Bills. The Presidential Reference broadly seeks clarity on whether courts can prescribe the manner and timeframe within which constitutional authorities such as the President and Governors must act. However, Opposition leaders and legal experts have criticised the move, viewing it as an attempt to unsettle the legal position affirmed in the April 8 ruling. They contend that the Union government is seeking to circumvent the ordinary appellate process by invoking Article 143 to indirectly challenge an unfavourable verdict. What does the court's advisory jurisdiction entail? Article 143(1) of the Constitution confers advisory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, empowering it to render opinions on questions of law or fact that are not connected to any ongoing litigation. This provision traces its origins to Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which granted similar powers to the Federal Court of India. The only prerequisites are that the President must be satisfied that such a question has arisen or is likely to arise, and that it is of such a nature and of such public importance that it warrants the court's opinion. Since Independence, this power has been invoked on at least 14 occasions. However, the court is bound to limit itself strictly to the questions referred by the President and cannot exceed the scope of the Reference. The inclusion of this provision was not without debate in the Constituent Assembly. Several members expressed concerns that such an advisory jurisdiction could be misused for political ends. Ultimately, the framers retained it, recognising its utility in resolving constitutional impasses beyond the scope of ordinary litigation. To prevent misuse, it was agreed, and later codified in Article 145(3), that Presidential References must be heard by a Bench of at least five judges.' Can it decline a Reference? Although the Supreme Court has agreed to entertain the present Reference, it is not obligated to do so in every instance. In In Re: The Special Courts Bill (1978), the court held that the use of the word 'may' in Article 143(1), which provides that the court 'may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon', confers discretionary power to decline a Reference. However, if the court chooses not to respond, it must record its reasons. This position was reaffirmed in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), where the court held that a Reference may be declined if it involves questions requiring expert evidence or those of a purely political nature, which the court is not competent to adjudicate. In 1993, the Supreme Court declined to answer a Presidential Reference concerning the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute. Justices A.M. Ahmadi and S.P. Bharucha cited the pendency of a civil suit on the same issue as grounds for refusing to respond. They also held that the Reference was 'unconstitutional' as it violated the principle of secularism, and expressed concern that the government might use the court's advisory opinion to further its political agenda. A similar instance occurred in 1982, when the court chose not to respond to a reference made by President Giani Zail Singh regarding the constitutionality of a proposed law facilitating the resettlement or permanent return of individuals (or their descendants) who had migrated to Pakistan between March 1, 1947, and May 14, 1954, to Jammu and Kashmir. Before the court could render its opinion, the Jammu & Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Bill, 1982, was re-enacted by the legislature and received the Governor's assent. The validity of the law was later challenged through regular proceedings before the Supreme Court. Are advsiory opinions binding? The binding force of advisory opinions rendered by the Supreme Court remains contested. Article 141 of the Constitution states that the 'law declared' by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. In St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (1974), the court clarified that advisory opinions do not amount to binding precedents, though they command significant persuasive authority. Nevertheless, there have been instances where the court has appeared to treat such opinions as authoritative. In Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay (1961), the court relied on the advisory opinion rendered in In Re: The Delhi Laws Act (1951) to adjudicate the question of excessive legislative delegation. A more notable example is R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981), where Justice P.N. Bhagwati treated the legal reasoning in the Special Courts Bill Reference as binding precedent. This was despite Justice Y.V. Chandrachud's explicit caveat in that Reference that the court's opinion were not binding on other courts. The ambiguity persisted in In Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991), where the court reiterated that advisory opinions are entitled to 'due weight and respect' and are 'normally followed.' However, it refrained from settling the question of their binding nature, observing that the issue could be revisited at a more appropriate time. As it stands, any advisory opinion issued in the present presidential Reference would not have binding force. The Supreme Court's April 8 judgment, delivered in the exercise of its adjudicatory jurisdiction under Article 141, would continue to prevail irrespective of the opinion. Meanwhile, similar petitions filed by Kerala and Punjab remain pending before the court. Kerala has sought to withdraw its plea, contending that the April 8 judgment has already settled the law. However, the Union government has opposed the withdrawal, arguing that Kerala's case differs from that of Tamil Nadu. Nonetheless, the advisory opinion in this Reference is expected to carry persuasive weight in those proceedings. Can the court overturn its April 8 ruling through the Reference? In its opinion on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Reference, the Supreme Court underscored that Article 143 cannot be used as a means for the executive to seek a review or reversal of its settled judicial decisions. 'When this 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 opinion said. It further cautioned that it could not 'countenance a situation' where a question in a Reference is framed in a manner that effectively revisits a settled decision of the court. Accordingly, the only legitimate avenue available to the Union government to challenge the April 8 decision would be to invoke the court's review or curative jurisdiction. However, in In re Natural Resources Allocation (2012), the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional bar on its ability to clarify, restate, or even formulate a fresh opinion on a question of law under Article 143(1), so long as the ratio decidendi of an earlier judgment remains intact and the rights of parties in the original case are unaffected. The Reference, made by then President Pratibha Patil, followed the court's decision quashing the 2G spectrum allocation and mandating auctions as the sole method for spectrum distribution. While the five-judge Bench acknowledged that the verdict had attained finality, it held that the legal principles underpinning it could be further clarified. Similarly, in 1998, a Presidential Reference was used to modify certain aspects of a previous ruling on judicial appointments. While reaffirming the validity of the collegium system laid down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), the court revised the composition and functioning of the collegium, thereby refining the appointment process without overturning the earlier judgment. Therefore, while the April 8 judgment is final and binding, its findings on the law may still be refined or elaborated upon by the five-judge Bench hearing the present Reference. Further, the Reference contains 14 questions of law, which mostly stem from the April 8 ruling, but are not limited to it. Notably, the final three questions raise broader issues concerning the scope and exercise of the Supreme Court's discretionary powers under the Constitution.
The Hindu
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Presidential reference hearing: Supreme Court to issue notices to Union, State Govts; hearing in mid-August
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) said the Court will issue notice to the Union Government and all the State Governments on the hearing of presidential reference. Presidential reference hearing live The hearing is on a presidential reference on whether the Court can 'impose' timelines and prescribe the manner of conduct of Governors and the President while dealing with State Bills sent to them for assent or reserved for consideration. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar said they will hear the matter in mid-August. CJI Gavai said they are keeping all the questions open. P. Wilson, who is appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, said all questions are covered in the April 8 Tamil Nadu Governor judgment. K.K. Venugopal who is appearing for the State of Kerala, questioned the maintainability of the presidential reference. The Supreme Court recorded the Attorney General of India's agreement to assist the Court. Mr. Wilson also said the State of Tamil Nadu will also question the maintainability of the State. Before the Constitution Bench rose, CJI Gavai said the Supreme Court is concerned with the country, adding that the Court will answer the questions raised by the President.
