Latest news with #Murmu
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
President Murmu urges MES officers to adopt green tech, build smart
As emerging leaders in the field of military construction, young Military Engineer Services (MES) officers have a crucial responsibility "not only to build but to build with responsibility", President Droupadi Murmu said on Wednesday. The MES plays a vital role in strengthening the operational readiness of the country's armed forces, she said. "By providing comprehensive engineering support, MES ensures that our troops are equipped with world-class infrastructure and facilities, enabling them to remain mission-ready under all conditions," Murmu said, addressing a group of MES probationers, who had called on her at the Rashtrapati Bhavan here. Murmu further called on the officers to focus on adopting renewable energy sources to promote sustainable development and reduce the carbon footprint of defence infrastructure. The President noted that MES is actively promoting the use of indigenous materials and technologies under the Make in India initiative, aligned with the national vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat. "This supports local industries and also strengthens the domestic defence ecosystem. MES must also become a pioneer in technological innovation. Integrating advanced tools such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), drone surveillance, and the use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for predictive maintenance and project planning will enhance precision and effectiveness," Murmu said. Addressing the probationers of Indian Defence Estates Service officers, who had also called on the President, she said the integration of digital solutions is a necessity in this era of rapid technological transformation. "It is your duty to stay abreast of the technological advancements and apply them in your functioning. Artificial Intelligence, drone-based land surveys, satellite imagery, and blockchain for property record maintenance are no longer futuristic concepts; they are becoming part of governance," the President said. Murmu asked them to embrace green practices in infrastructure development, adopt renewable energy solutions, reduce wastage, and ensure water conservation in cantonments. "By combining technical expertise with innovation, you have the opportunity to make the Defence Estates a model of sustainable and smart urban management. But by far the most important element for your job is a sense of service," she said. A group of probationers of the Central Water Engineering Service also met the President. "Water resources management has always been a challenging task. Your contribution towards water infrastructure development by providing engineering solutions will make the country more resilient against natural and man-made water crises," she said. The sustainable development of water resources and efficient management of water is key to water security and growth, especially in the wake of changing climatic trends, Murmu stated. "Therefore, you are expected to play a key role in adopting a holistic approach to address the existing and upcoming challenges," she added. The President highlighted that by providing clean water and promoting water conservation, India can improve public health, boost agricultural productivity, and ensure sustainable use of natural resources. Effective water management can play a significant role in securing a resilient future for generations to come, she noted. "I am confident that you will always uphold the highest ideals of public service and work tirelessly to build a stronger, inclusive, and more prosperous India. I wish you all a bright future," the President stated. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Scroll.in
a day ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC issues notice to Centre, states on president's reference about timelines for assent to bills
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and all state governments on the reference made to it by President Droupadi Murmu about the court's April 8 ruling that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures, Live Law reported. The notice was issued by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar. The matter concerning the appearances of the respondents will be heard on July 29. 'Tentatively, we propose to start [the hearing] somewhere in mid-August,' The Indian Express quoted Gavai as saying. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling. Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance. In light of the reference, the court will have to set up a Constitution bench to provide answers. The ruling on April 8 had come on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. In its judgement, the court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, it said that the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both sections outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgement had also introduced the concept of ' deemed assent ' in cases of prolonged inaction by the governor or president, allowing pending bills to be considered approved, Bar and Bench reported. Referencing the 14 questions, Murmu had asked whether the actions of governors and the president could be tried in court, and whether such timelines could be imposed on them in the absence of such provision in law.
NDTV
a day ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Supreme Court To Hear President vs Kerala, Tamil Nadu Over Assent For Bills
New Delhi: The issue of gubernatorial and presidential assent to state bills came up in the Supreme Court Tuesday morning after the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments opposed a presidential reference to the court's April verdict, which said governors could not reserve bills for the president if they had withheld consent in the first instance, and that the president must sign off on all bills within three months. The court overruled the states' objections but promised a full hearing. A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai then directed the states and the centre to file replies within a week. The next hearing will likely be in August. Kerala's ruling Left Democratic Front and Tamil Nadu's Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam both opposed any hearing on President Droupadi Murmu 's letter to the Supreme Court in May. Their challenges were also shot down - although in comments that have raised eyebrows - by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the centre. Mr Mehta declared, "... repeated requests (referring to the states' challenges) are only successful if a man is proposing to a girl." There were 14 questions in Ms Murmu's letter, which was sent under Article 143 of the Constitution that allows the President to ask for the opinion and advice of the Supreme Court. These included a pointed query about the judiciary's authority to prescribe deadlines for governors and the president to sign off on bills passed by state governments, and another about the judiciary possible interfering in a governor's exercise of constitutional discretion. Ms Murmu's letter drew a strong response from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, who said he "strongly condemns... attempts to subvert the Constitutional position settled (by the Supreme Court)". The DMK boss - who faces a critical election next year, for which the BJP has allied with arch-rivals the AIADMK - also called it a "desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected state governments". Earlier, in what was a brief hearing, senior advocates KK Venugopal and P Wilson, appearing for Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, questioned the viability of the presidential reference. "It will directly affect us..." Mr Wilson said, possibly in reference to 10 bills the Tamil Nadu government signed into law in April. This was after the Supreme Court ruled Governor RN Ravi had overstepped his authority by denying assent despite each having been passed twice. A bench of Justice SB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said, "... these bills shall be deemed to be cleared from the date it was re-presented". That order has also been questioned by the President, who asked if "... it is a law in force without the assent of the governor..." To Mr Wilson's comment, the Chief Justice replied, "It will affect the whole country." In April the Supreme Court had set deadlines for the governor and president to sign off bills passed by a state government. This was in response to controversial face-offs between the governors of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab and the non-BJP governments in each state. Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan used a special power given to the Supreme Court to settle the issue, and did so by calling Governor Ravi's withholding assent "arbitrary" and "illegal" and setting all governors and the president a tight deadline to review and sign off on state bills.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
SC issues notice to Centre, states over President's reference on timelines for assent on Bills
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and all states on the reference made to it by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, following its verdict that fixed timelines for the President and governors to act on Bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 refers to the President's power to consult the top court. A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, which took up the matter, said it will fix timelines for the hearing next week. CJI Gavai said, 'Tentatively, we propose to start (the hearing) somewhere in mid-August.' The counsels appearing for Kerala and Tamil Nadu said they propose to question the maintainability of the reference. The CJI asked them to reserve their arguments for the hearing. In the reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Murmu has posed 14 questions over the top court's April 8 verdict. The President sought to know whether the actions of governors and the President are justiciable (whether courts can look into it) and whether such timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution. The reference pointed out that 'there are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable or not'. Under Article 145 (3), when the President makes a reference for the court's opinion, it is placed before a five-judge bench. On April 8, the Supreme Court had set a timeline for governors to act on pending Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should take a decision on the Bills, reserved for consideration by the Governor, within three months from the date on which such reference is received. Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no timeframe has been set for a President's decision. The Supreme Court had said that 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned. The April 8 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 Bills for consideration of the President in November 2023 after they had already been reconsidered by the Assembly, and said that the action was illegal and erroneous. In her reference to the apex court, President Murmu sought to know: 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?' Article 201 prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills or withholding assent therefrom, but 'does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options.' President Murmu pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the Governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, 'does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options'. 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?' the President sought to know. Murmu asked whether 'in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President', she 'is required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?' 'Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior to the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?' The President also asked: 'Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?' Some of the other questions referred to the top court are: 'What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?; Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?' The reference pointed out that the Constitution enlists numerous instances where the assent of the President has to be obtained before a legislation can take effect in a state. It said that 'the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, inter alia being federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers'. The President said, 'States are frequently approaching the Supreme Court of India invoking Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) of the Constitution of India (and not Article 131 which states that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over legal issues between states or between states and the Union), raising issues which by their very nature are federal issues involving interpretation of, inter alia, the Constitution of India.' The reference also said that 'the contours and scope of provisions contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also needs an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.' Article 142 refers to the enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex court. The President also said that 'the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor'.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
CJI-led bench to hear on July 22 President's reference to it on timeline for assent to Bills
The Supreme Court will take up on July 22 the reference made by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution, following the apex court's verdict fixing timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. A Constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar will consider the matter. In the Presidential reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Murmu has posed 14 questions over the top court's April 8 verdict. The President sought to know whether the actions of the Governors and President are justiciable and whether such timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution. The reference pointed out that 'there are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable or not'. Under Article 145 (3), when the President makes a reference for the court's opinion, it is placed before a five-judge bench. On April 8, the Supreme Court had set a timeline for Governors to act on pending Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should take a decision on the Bills, reserved for consideration by the Governor, within three months from the date on which such reference is received. Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no timeframe has been set for a President's decision. The SC had said that 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned. The April 8 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 Bills for consideration of the President in November 2023 after they had already been reconsidered by the Assembly, and said that the action was illegal and erroneous. In her reference to the SC, President Murmu sought to know: 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?' Article 201 prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills or withholding assent therefrom, but 'does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under' it. 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?' President Murmu pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the Governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, 'does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options'. President Murmu asked whether 'in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President', she 'is required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?' 'Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?' The President also asked: 'Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?' Some of the other questions referred to the top court are: 'What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?; Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?' The reference pointed out that the Constitution enlists numerous instances where the assent of the President has to be obtained before a legislation can take effect in a state. It said that 'the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, inter alia being federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers'. The President said, 'States are frequently approaching the Supreme Court of India invoking Article 32 [and not Article 131] of the Constitution of India raising issues which by their very nature are federal issues involving interpretation of, inter alia, the Constitution of India.' The reference also said that 'the contours and scope of provisions contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also needs an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.' The President also said that 'the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor'. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
