Latest news with #DraupadiMurmu
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
President nod for Act to dispose of civil disputes in two months in Karnataka
BENGALURU: President Draupadi Murmu has given assent for the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Bill, 2024. The presidential assent was given on May 19. This was notified in the Karnataka Gazette (extraordinary) on May 26. The Act comes into force with the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of expeditious disposal of cases of civil dispute in nature and providing speedy justice. It has scope for disposal through mediation by the Legal Services Authorities between the parties within two months and, if failed, by two years with the dates of judgment being certain. 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Authority authorised by the State Government shall complete the process of mediation within a period of two months from the date of reference Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of one month with the consent of the parties.' If the parties to the civil dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator and shall be submitted to the court. The court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow the procedure as prescribed. The court shall hold the first case management hearing, not later than four weeks from the date of completion of pleadings in the suit. The court shall ensure that the arguments are closed not later than 24 months from the date of the first case management hearing. Law Minister HK Patil had remarked that the new Act will be a game changer in terms of clearing the huge pendency of civil dispute cases.
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Jnanpith Award conferred on Gulzar, Rambhadracharya
President Draupadi Murmu presents 58th Jnanpith Award at Vigyan Bhavan NEW DELHI: President Droupadi Murmu on Friday conferred the 58th Jnanpith Award on Sanskrit scholar Jagadguru Rambhadracharya and renowned poet-lyricist Gulzar for 2023 at a function here. Gulzar could not attend the award ceremony due to health-related issues. Murmu congratulated the 90-year-old and wished he soon becomes fully healthy and active and continues to contribute to art, literature, society and the country. Speaking about his contributions, the President said, 'Gulzar sahab has kept alive his devotion towards literary creation for decades. It can be said that Gulzar sahab is a writer who has established tenderness amidst harshness. He has been awarded for his outstanding contribution to Indian literature and the world of Urdu writing'. He had received Sahitya Akademi Award in 2002, Padma Bhushan in 2004 and Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2013. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ótimas notícias para os cidadãos brasileiros! Leia mais Undo Rambhadracharya, 75, founder and head of Tulsi Peeth in Chitrakoot, is a renowned Hindu spiritual leader, educator and writer. The Sanskrit scholar was given a citation plaque, a cash prize and a bronze replica of Vagdevi Saraswati. His citations highlighted that he has written more than 240 books and four epics among numerous other literary achievements. He had received Padma Vibhushan in 2015. Hindi author Vinod Kumar Shukla has been named recipient of the 59th Jnanpith Award for 2024.
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
After President Murmu seeks advisory opinion from SC, can court overturn its R N Ravi decision?
President Draupadi Murmu has on Tuesday invoked the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction on whether timelines could be set for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state Assemblies. As per Article 143(1) of the Constitution, the President may refer a 'question of law or fact' to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The SC's opinion, unlike a ruling, is not binding in nature. Significantly, President Murmu made the reference just five weeks after the SC's controversial April 8 ruling in which it fixed a three-month deadline for the President to clear Bills reserved for his/her consideration by the Governor. The ruling by a two-judge Bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala also set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 pending Bills. The Government of India Act of 1935 had similar provisions to seek the opinion of the Federal Court but only on questions of law. The Constitution extended this to both questions of law and fact, including certain hypotheticals. A question under Article 143 may be referred if it 'has arisen, or is likely to arise,' and 'which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.' The SC returns the reference to the President with the majority opinion. Article 145(3) requires five judges to hear any such reference. The Constitution prescribes that the President act on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet. The advisory jurisdiction is a sparsely invoked power to ensure that the President has means to seek independent advice to act on certain constitutional matters. Article 143 states the Court 'may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.' The use of the word 'may' indicates that it is the Court's prerogative to answer — or not to answer — the reference. However, the SC almost always answers the reference. In at least 14 Presidential references made since 1950, the apex court has returned only one without answering, and that too for technical reasons. The SC did not answer Special Reference No 1 of 1982 which was made by then President Giani Zail Singh on whether the Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Bill, 1980, or any of its provisions, would be constitutionally invalid, if enacted. The law sought to regulate the resettlement or permanent return of individuals (or their descendants) who had migrated to Pakistan between March 1, 1947 and May 14, 1954. However, after the President's reference, the Bill was passed for a second time and the Governor gave his assent. Petitions challenging the validity of the laws were also moved before the SC. 'Having regard to the fact that the Bill became an Act as far back as in 1982, it appears to us inexpedient to answer the question posed to us in the Reference. Even if we were to answer the question in the affirmative, we would be unable to strike down the Act in this proceeding. We think, therefore, that the Reference must be, respectfully, returned unanswered,' it said in 2001. Since advisory jurisdiction is not binding as a precedent, even if the SC held the law to be unconstitutional in the Article 143 reference, it would still have to separately decide the validity of the law. The SC's opinion to the President would also be futile since the issue was not before the President anymore. The SC in its 1991 opinion involving the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, has said Article 143 is not a mechanism for the executive to seek review or reversal of established judicial decisions of the Supreme Court. '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 had said. The SC had also said that it cannot 'countenance a situation' where a question in a reference 'may be so construed as to invite our opinion' on a settled decision of the SC. 'That would obviously be tantamount to our sitting in appeal on the said decision which it is impermissible for us to do even in adjudicatory jurisdiction. Nor is it competent for the President to invest us with an appellate jurisdiction over the said decision through a Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution,' the Court had said. The government can still file a review of the SC's April 8 ruling, and even move a curative petition to reverse it. Since the judgment is by a two-judge Bench and similar cases from other states, including Kerala and Punjab, are pending, it is possible that another Bench may refer it to a larger constitutional bench. However, the present reference contains 14 questions of law, which are mostly drawn from the April 8 ruling but are not limited to it. The last three questions raise larger issues on how the SC exercises its discretionary powers provided by the Constitution. In Question 12, the reference asks whether the SC must first determine if a case involves a 'substantive question of law' or requires 'interpretation of the Constitution' that only a larger Bench can hear. This is essentially questioning whether smaller benches can hear such important issues. In Question 13, the reference raises questions on the use of Article 142 of the Constitution, which is the discretionary 'power to do complete justice.' The last question also asks the SC to define the contours of Centre-state disputes that can be heard by any court. Article 131 of the Constitution states that 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute.' Why has the reference been made? Issues in the R N Ravi case essentially involved the interplay between the Centre and opposition ruled states. Governors who are appointed by the Centre were seen to be undercutting elected state governments by simply not clearing Bills passed in the Assembly. While the SC addressed this issue, it extended its scrutiny to the role of the President's powers as well, setting a three-month timeline to clear Bills reserved for his/her consideration by the Governor. The SC's reason for involving the President was because Governor Ravi, under fire from the SC for withholding assent, had referred 10 Bills to the President. This was seen by the SC as an artful tactic to stall bills by involving the President. The SC in its ruling allowed states the right to seek a 'writ of mandamus' from the SC against the President. This is essentially a right to knock on the Courts seeking a directive against the President if she does not decide on bills within the prescribed time limit. The ruling came under criticism from the government with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar raising the issue in Rajya Sabha. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani too criticised the ruling as the President 'was not heard' before the SC passed directives for her office to follow. The ruling also gave fresh impetus for the government to attack the judiciary on the grounds that it was undermining Parliament or the people's mandate. Dhankar has raised the issue of 'Parliamentary supremacy' several times in the past, and called for limited judicial review and greater adherence to the separation of powers. However, these fissures between the Parliament and the judiciary are as old as the Constitution itself. In the first three decades since independence, the courts and successive governments sparred on interpretation of the right to property, leading to constitutional amendments and their striking down. Eventually, in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling, the SC allowed land reforms, watering down the fundamental right to property but severely restricted the Parliament's powers to tinker with any other fundamental right. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
India.com
03-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Prez Murmu, PM Modi Express Condolences Over Goa Temple Stampede
Goa Stampede: President Draupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday expressed condolences to the people who lost their lives in the stampede that occurred during the annual Jatra procession at the Shirgão temple in Goa on Friday. In a post on the social media platform X, President Murmu extended her condolences to the bereaved families. 'Sad to know about the unfortunate incident of a stampede in Shirgao, Goa which claimed several lives. I extend my condolences to bereaved family members and pray for quick recovery of the injured,' the President said. Sad to know about the unfortunate incident of a stampede in Shirgao, Goa which claimed several lives. I extend my condolences to bereaved family members and pray for quick recovery of the injured.— President of India (@rashtrapatibhvn) May 3, 2025 The Prime Minister's Office also posted on X and wrote, 'Saddened by the loss of lives due to a stampede in Shirgao, Goa. Condolences to those who lost their loved ones. May the injured recover soon. The local administration is assisting those affected: PM @narendramodi.' Saddened by the loss of lives due to a stampede in Shirgao, Goa. Condolences to those who lost their loved ones. May the injured recover soon. The local administration is assisting those affected: PM @narendramodi — PMO India (@PMOIndia) May 3, 2025 According to IANS, PM Modi spoke with Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant and reviewed the Goa stampede situation in detail. He also offered full support from the Centre. Also Read: 7 Killed, Over 30 Injured In Stampede At Goa Temple On the other hand, CM Sawant, in a post on X, informed that he had visited the hospital where the injured were receiving treatment and added that he is "personally monitoring" the situation. The CM said, "Deeply saddened by the tragic stampede at the Lairai Zatra in Shirgaon this morning. I visited the hospital to meet the injured and have assured all possible support to the affected families. I am personally monitoring the situation to ensure that every necessary measure is being taken." Goa Stampede The Goa stampede occurred during the Shri Lairai Yatra, an annual religious event that draws thousands of devotees to the temple in North Goa. During the ritual, 'dhonds' participate barefoot and walk across a bed of burning embers. The number of devotees and a sudden surge in the crowd reportedly led to the Goa stampede. The situation turned chaotic due to a downward slope on a stretch of the route, where the crowd reportedly surged forward rapidly, leading to a crush, IANS reported. According to preliminary reports, severe overcrowding and insufficient crowd management arrangements could have been the probable causes behind the stampede. Goa Health Minister Vishwajit Rane has confirmed that all district hospitals are on high alert. Health Minister Rane added that the hospitals are fully equipped to handle the emergency, and that the medical infrastructure at Goa Medical College (GMC) and other district hospitals has been strengthened.
India Today
29-04-2025
- Politics
- India Today
BR Gavai appointed Chief Justice of India with effect from May 14
President Draupadi Murmu has appointed Supreme Court Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai as the Chief Justice of India with effect from May 14, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal shared the update on social media platform. "In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Chief Justice of India with effect from May 14, 2025," the Minister wrote on X. advertisementThe current Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, will retire on May 13. Justice B R Gavai will be the 52th Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, he will serve as the Chief Justice of India only for six months as he is due to retire in November Gavai was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on May 24, 2019. Born on November 24, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra. His father, Late RS Gavai, was former Governor of Bihar and Kerala and a noted social activist .The newly appointed CJI began his judicial career as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on November 14, 2003, and became a Permanent Judge on November 12, 2005. He served for over 15 years, presiding over benches at Mumbai, Nagpur, Aurangabad, and will also be the second CJI to come from a Scheduled Caste community. The first CJI belonging to a scheduled caste community was Justice KG VERDICTSJustice BR Gavai authored the majority opinion upholding the 2016 demonetisation scheme, affirming the Union government's power to declare currency invalid and stating that the scheme satisfied the 'test of proportionality'.In a landmark judgment, he held that demolishing properties of accused individuals without due process is unconstitutional, emphasising that executive authorities cannot act as judges and execute demolitions without legal was also a part of the bench that examined the constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme, addressing concerns about transparency in political funding.
