Latest news with #GovernmentofIndiaAct
The Hindu
7 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.
The Hindu
22-07-2025
- 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.
Indian Express
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Daily subject-wise quiz: Polity and Governance MCQs on Vice-President of India, Sessions of Parliament and more (Week 120)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative of daily subject-wise quizzes. These quizzes are designed to help you revise some of the most important topics from the static part of the syllabus. Attempt today's subject quiz on Polity and Governance to check your progress. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for July 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at With reference to the Sessions of Parliament, consider the following statements: 1. India has a fixed parliamentary calendar. 2. Parliament generally meets for three sessions in a year. 3. The longest session is the Monsoon session. How many of the statements given above are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Explanation — India does not have a fixed parliamentary calendar. By convention, Parliament meets for three sessions in a year. Hence, statement 1 is not correct and statement 2 is correct. — The longest, the Budget Session, begins towards the end of January and ends by the end of April or the first week of May. The session is adjourned so that Parliamentary Committees can debate budget suggestions. Hence, statement 3 is not correct. — The second session is the three-week Monsoon Session, which typically starts in July and ends in August. The parliamentary year concludes with a three-week Winter Session, which runs from November to December. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. (Other Source: With reference to the summoning of Parliament, consider the following statements: 1. It is based on a provision of the Government of India Act, 1935. 2. It is not specified in the Constitution of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — The summoning of Parliament is specified in Article 85 of the Constitution. Like many other articles, it is based on a provision of the Government of India Act, 1935. Hence, statement 1 is correct and statement 2 is not correct. — This provision specified that the central legislature had to be summoned to meet at least once a year, and that not more than 12 months could elapse between two sessions. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. (Other Source: Consider the following statements about ancestral property: 1. A tribal woman is not entitled to an equal share in ancestral property. 2. In the absence of a specific law governing intestate succession among Scheduled Tribes, the principle of 'justice, equity and good conscience', extending the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, is invoked. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — The Supreme Court held that a tribal woman would be entitled to an equal share in ancestral property. The SC observed that denying a female heir right in the property unless otherwise prescribed in law only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should weed out. Hence, statement 1 is not correct. — In the absence of a specific law governing intestate succession among Scheduled Tribes, Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi invoked the principle of 'justice, equity and good conscience', extending the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 to the case and set aside the July 1, 2022 judgement of the Chhattisgarh HC, which had upheld the lower court order denying her the inheritance rights. Hence, statement 2 is correct. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. Which of the following articles of the Constitution of India provides for the reservation of seats for women in the Legislative Assemblies of the States? (a) Article 331 (b) Article 332 (c) Article 332-A (d) Article 333 Explanation — Article 332-A of the Constitution of India provides for the reservation of seats for women in the Legislative Assemblies of the States. — Seats shall be reserved for women in the Legislative Assembly of every State. — As nearly as may be, one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (3) of article 332 shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. — As nearly as may be, one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be reserved for women. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. (Source: Constitution of India) With reference to the removal of a judge, consider the following statements: 1. A notice for the removal of a judge has to be signed by not less than 50 members in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. 2. Once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House has to accept it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — Across party lines, 145 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members have given notice to file a motion demanding the dismissal of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who is currently placed at Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma is at the focus of a controversy when a Supreme Court-appointed commission found credibility in allegations that wads of cash notes were discovered at his official residence when a fire broke out on March 14. — A notice for the removal of a judge has to be signed by not less than 100 members in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha, as per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Hence, statement 1 is not correct. — Once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House can either accept or reject it. If accepted, a three-member committee, comprising two judges and a jurist, will be constituted to probe the complaint and determine if it is a case fit for initiating the process of impeachment. Hence, statement 2 is not correct. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. Consider the following personalities who held Constitutional positions in India: 1. V.V. Giri 2. R. Venkataraman 3. Shankar Dayal Sharma Which of the above-mentioned Vice-Presidents of India resigned before completing their term to contest the presidential elections? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Explanation — Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's resignation late on Monday night has created a rare mid-term vacancy in the country's second-highest constitutional office. He is only the third Vice-President in India's history to resign before completing his term, after V.V. Giri and R. Venkataraman—both of whom stepped down to contest presidential elections and were succeeded by Gopal Swarup Pathak and Shankar Dayal Sharma, respectively. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. Consider the following statements with reference to the office of Vice President of India: 1. In case of vacancy, the Constitution requires it to be filled within six months. 2. The elected candidate serves a full five-year term from the date of assuming office — not just the remainder of its predecessor's tenure. 3. The Constitution does not provide for an acting Vice-President. Which of the above given statements is/are true? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 3 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Explanation Who performs the Vice-President's duties now? — The Constitution does not provide for an acting Vice-President. However, since the Vice-President is also the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Deputy Chairman will preside over the House in his absence. Hence, statement 3 is true. When will the election be held? — In the case of the President, the Constitution requires that a vacancy be filled within six months. But for a Vice-Presidential vacancy, there is no such fixed deadline. The only requirement is that the election be held 'as soon as possible' after the post falls vacant. The Election Commission will announce the schedule. The poll is conducted under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952. As per convention, the Secretary General of either House of Parliament is appointed as the Returning Officer, in rotation. Hence, statement 1 is not true. How long will the new Vice-President serve? — The elected candidate serves a full five-year term from the date of assuming office — not just the remainder of the predecessor's tenure. Hence, statement 2 is true. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. With reference to election of Vice-President of India, consider the following statements: 1. The Vice-President is elected by an electoral college made up of members from both Houses of Parliament — Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha — excluding nominated members. 2. To be declared elected, a candidate must reach a required minimum number of votes — called the quota which is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes by two and adding one (fractions, if any, are ignored). Which of the above given statements is/are true? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation How is the Vice-President elected in India? — The Vice-President is elected by an electoral college made up of members from both Houses of Parliament — Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha — including nominated members. Unlike in a presidential election, state legislatures do not participate. Hence, statement 1 is not true. — Voting is held in Parliament House in New Delhi, by secret ballot, using the system of proportional representation with a single transferable vote. Each MP casts a vote by ranking candidates in order of preference. All votes carry equal value. — To be declared elected, a candidate must reach a required minimum number of votes — called the quota. This is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes by two and adding one (fractions, if any, are ignored). If no candidate crosses the quota in the first round, the one with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the remaining candidates based on second preferences. The process continues until one candidate crosses the quota. Hence, statement 2 is true. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 118) Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 119) Daily subject-wise quiz — Science and Technology (Week 119) Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 119) Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 119) Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 119) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X. Manas Srivastava is currently working as Senior Copy Editor with The Indian Express (digital) and leads a unique initiative of IE - UPSC Essentials. He majorly writes on UPSC, other competitive exams and education-related projects. In the past, Manas has represented India at the G-20 Youth Summit in Mexico. He is a former member of the Youth Council, GOI. A two-time topper/gold medallist in History (both in graduation and post-graduation) from Delhi University, he has mentored and taught UPSC aspirants for more than five years. His diverse role in The Indian Express consists of writing, editing, anchoring/ hosting, interviewing experts, and curating and simplifying news for the benefit of students. He hosts the YouTube talk show called 'Art and Culture with Devdutt Pattanaik' and a LIVE series on Instagram and YouTube called 'LIVE with Manas'.His talks on 'How to read a newspaper' focus on newspaper reading as an essential habit for students. His articles and videos aim at finding solutions to the general queries of students and hence he believes in being students' editor, preparing them not just for any exam but helping them to become informed citizens. This is where he makes his teaching profession meet journalism. He is also the editor of UPSC Essentials' monthly magazine for the aspirants. He is a recipient of the Dip Chand Memorial Award, the Lala Ram Mohan Prize and Prof. Papiya Ghosh Memorial Prize for academic excellence. He was also awarded the University's Post-Graduate Scholarship for pursuing M.A. in History where he chose to specialise in Ancient India due to his keen interest in Archaeology. He has also successfully completed a Certificate course on Women's Studies by the Women's Studies Development Centre, DU. As a part of N.S.S in the past, Manas has worked with national and international organisations and has shown keen interest and active participation in Social Service. He has led and been a part of projects involving areas such as gender sensitisation, persons with disability, helping slum dwellers, environment, adopting our heritage programme. He has also presented a case study on 'Psychological stress among students' at ICSQCC- Sri Lanka. As a compere for seminars and other events he likes to keep his orating hobby alive. His interests also lie in International Relations, Governance, Social issues, Essays and poetry. ... Read More
Indian Express
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Explained: SC to hear President's reference to it on timeline to assent to bills
The Supreme Court will take up the reference made to it by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution on July 22, following the apex court's verdict on setting timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. A constitution bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar will consider the matter. President Droupadi Murmu on May 13 invoked the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction on the time limit to assent to bills. This was done under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, wherein the President may refer a 'question of law or fact' to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The opinion, unlike a ruling, is not binding. The reference was made five weeks after the SC's April 8 ruling in which it fixed a three-month deadline for the President to clear Bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor. That ruling, by a two-judge Bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala, set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 pending Bills. The Constitution extended the provision in the Government of India Act, 1935 to seek the opinion of the Federal Court on questions of law to questions of 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'. Article 145(3) requires any such reference to be heard by five judges, after which the SC returns the reference to the President with the majority opinion. Under the Constitution, the President acts on the aid and advice of the Cabinet. The advisory jurisdiction allows her the means to seek independent advice to act on certain constitutional matters. It is a power that the President has invoked on at least 15 occasions since 1950. Article 143(1) states the court 'may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon'. The word 'may' indicates that it is the court's prerogative to answer the reference. The SC has so far returned at least two references without answering. 🔴 In 1993, then President Shankar Dayal Sharma asked the SC 'whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid…in the area on which the structure stood.' The SC unanimously refused to answer this as a civil suit on the dispute was already pending before the courts. Justices AM Ahmedi and S P Bharucha declined to answer also on the grounds that the reference was against secularism, and hence unconstitutional. The judges also expressed apprehension that the government could use the SC opinion as a springboard to politically negotiate the issue. 🔴 The SC did not answer a 1982 reference made by President Giani Zail Singh on the constitutionality of a proposed law that 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 to Jammu and Kashmir. 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. Since advisory jurisdiction is not binding as a precedent, even if the SC had held the law to be unconstitutional in the Article 143 reference, it would still have to decide its validity in the other batch. The SC's opinion would also be futile since the issue was no longer before the President. In its 1991 opinion on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the SC said that 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 said. The SC also said it could not 'countenance a situation' where a question in a reference 'may be so construed as to invite our opinion' on a settled decision of the court. '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…,' the court said. The government can, however, file for a review of the April 8 ruling, and can move a curative petition in an attempt to reverse it. Since the judgment was by a two-judge Bench, and similar cases from other states, including Kerala and Punjab, remain pending, it is possible that another Bench might refer it to a larger Constitution Bench. The 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 discretionary powers provided by the Constitution. 🔴 Question 12 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 question essentially asks whether smaller Benches can hear such important matters. 🔴 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 asks the SC to define the contours of Centre-state disputes that can be heard by any court. Article 131 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.' The issues in the R N Ravi case essentially arise out of the interplay of powers between the Centre and Opposition-ruled states. Governors, who are appointed by the Centre, are seen to be undercutting elected state governments by their refusal to clear Bills passed by the Assembly. While the SC addressed this issue in its April 8 judgment, it extended its scrutiny to the powers of the President as well, and set a three-month timeline to clear Bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor. Governor Ravi, under fire from the SC for withholding assent, had referred 10 Bills to 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 doors of courts seeking a directive against the President if she does not decide on the Bills within the prescribed time limit. The government used the ruling to argue that the judiciary was undermining Parliament or the people's mandate. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani said the President 'was not heard' before the SC passed directives for her office to follow. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticised the ruling. He has raised the issue of 'Parliamentary supremacy' on several occasions, and called for limited judicial review and greater adherence to the separation of powers. That said, such tussles between Parliament and the judiciary are as old as the Constitution itself. In the first three decades after Independence, courts and the government sparred on the interpretation of the right to property, leading to constitutional amendments and adverse court orders. Eventually, in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling, the court allowed land reforms, watering down the fundamental right to property, but severely restricted Parliament's powers to tinker with any other fundamental right. This is an updated version of an explainer first published on May 15.
Indian Express
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Knowledge Nugget: Why is Parliamentary Estimates Committee important for your UPSC exam?
Take a look at the essential concepts, terms, quotes, or phenomena every day and brush up your knowledge. Here's your knowledge nugget for today. (Relevance: In 2023, UPSC has asked a question in General Studies II on the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system and how it helped in the institutionalisation of the Indian Parliament. A preliminary question was asked on the Estimate Committee (Do solve it in the post-read questions). In this regard, it makes this topic very important for your UPSC exam.) Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday (23rd June) inaugurated the national conference marking the platinum jubilee of the Parliamentary Estimates Committee in Mumbai's Vidhan Bhavan complex. The two-day event, held at the Maharashtra Vidhan Bhavan complex in Mumbai, brought together committee chairpersons and members from across the country. 1. Describing the 75-year milestone as a 'significant moment in India's parliamentary journey,' Birla said the Estimates Committee had submitted over 1,000 reports since its formation in 1950, shaping key national policies in sectors such as health, education, infrastructure, and defence. 2. Birla underscored the importance of fostering institutional synergy, enhancing financial accountability, and embracing technology-driven governance to strengthen democratic processes. The Speaker urged members to uphold the spirit of collaboration and responsibility, reinforcing the committees' role as pillars of parliamentary democracy. He also called for coordination between the Estimates Committees of Parliament and the state/UT legislatures. 3. Dileep P Chandran wrote in the Indian Express, 'Parliamentary committees are devices to overcome the limitations of organisational and technical complexity of large legislatures. Independent India inherited the modern committee system from the British parliamentary system and innovated new techniques to effectively manage the voluminous tasks in the large Parliament.' 4. The origin of the parliamentary committee system in India can be traced back to the British colonial era. The first committee established in the Indian legislature was the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in 1921 under the Government of India Act, 1919, also called the Montford Reforms. 5. The constitution has not provided any special provisions on the composition, tenure, or functioning of the Parliamentary Committees. Parliamentary Committees draw their authority from Article 105, which deals with the privileges of MPs, and Article 118, which gives Parliament authority to make rules to regulate its procedure and conduct of business. Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business. (Article 118(1)) 6. The Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure provide for the appointment of the parliamentary committees. The committee is appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker/Chairman. They work under the direction of the Speaker/Chairman. The committee presents its report to the House or to the Speaker/Chairman. 7. Parliamentary committees help MPs devote more time to each item under scrutiny and examine matters in great detail. These committees can also seek inputs from experts from respective fields and ensure the participation of stakeholders in deliberations. These measures help members from various political parties to reach a consensus on insurmountable issues. 1. The Estimates Committee is a Financial Standing Committee which shall consist of not more than thirty members who shall be elected by the House every year from amongst its members according to the principle of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. A minister shall not be elected to be a member of the committee, and if a member, after election to the Committee, is appointed a Minister, such member shall cease to be a member of the Committee from the date of such appointment. 2. The term of the office shall not exceed one year. Rule 312 of the Lok Sabha provides that 'the Committee may continue the examination of the estimates from time to time throughout the financial year and report to the House as its examination proceeds.' It is not required that the committee examine the entire estimates of any one year. (a) Report what economies, improvements in organization, efficiency or administrative reform, consistent with the policy underlying the estimates, may be affected; (b) suggest alternative policies in order to bring about efficiency and economy in administration; (c) examine whether the money is well laid out within the limits of the policy implied in the estimates; and (d) Suggest the form in which the estimates shall be presented to Parliament. The Committee does not exercise its functions in relation to such Public Undertakings as are allotted to the Committee on Public Undertakings by the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha or by the Speaker. 1. Broadly, Parliamentary Committees can be classified into Financial Committees, Departmentally Related Standing Committees, Other Parliamentary Standing Committees, and Ad hoc Committees. 2. The Financial Committees include the Estimates Committee, Public Accounts Committee, and the Committee on Public Undertakings. These committees were constituted in 1950. 3. Seventeen Departmentally Related Standing Committees came into being in 1993, when Shivraj Patil was Speaker of Lok Sabha, to examine budgetary proposals and crucial government policies. The aim was to increase Parliamentary scrutiny, and to give members more time and a wider role in examining important legislation. The number of Committees was subsequently increased to 24. Each of these Committees has 31 members — 21 from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha. 4. Ad hoc Committees are appointed for a specific purpose. They cease to exist after they have completed the task assigned to them, and have submitted a report to the House. The principal Ad hoc Committees are the Select and Joint Committees on Bills. Committees like the Railway Convention Committee, Committee on Food Management and Security in Parliament House Complex, etc. also come under the category of Ad hoc Committees. 5. Parliament can also constitute a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) with a special purpose, with members from both Houses, for detailed scrutiny of a subject or Bill. Also, either of the two Houses can set up a Select Committee with members from that House. JPCs and Select Committees are usually chaired by ruling party MPs, and are disbanded after they have submitted their report. (set up in 1921) (set up on the recommendation of John Mathai, the then Finance Minister) (created in 1964) Which one of the following is the largest Committee of the Parliament? (UPSC CSE 2014) (a) The Committee on Public Accounts (b) The Committee on Estimates (c) The Committee on Public Undertakings (d) The Committee on Petition (Source: India's Parliamentary Committee System: Unveiling its origin, significance and challenges, LS Speaker Om Birla inaugurates Estimates Committee platinum jubilee meet, Constitution of India, Rules of Procedure Lok Sabha, Parliament Committees, their leaders, and their role in law-making) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for June 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at
