Latest news with #PresidentialReferenceBench
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference: Elected State governments at the mercy of Governors' whims
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) asked the Centre if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them. A Presidential Reference Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai was testing a submission made by the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Kanu Agarwal, that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent to proposed laws presented to them for approval under Article 200 of the Constitution. Presidential Reference hearing updates | August 20, 2025 'So, are Governors being given total powers to sit in appeal over the elected representatives? This way, if Bills are failed by Governors, governments formed by majority will be at the mercy of their whims and fancies,' Chief Justice Gavai quizzed Mr. Mehta's interpretation of Article 200. Mr. Mehta responded that the power of a Governor to withhold assent was meant to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary situations, especially when a State Bill frustrated the very democratic will of the nation, or violated fundamental rights, or was repugnant to an existing Central law. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal interjected to point out that if a Governor had the power to lapse a Bill by withholding assent, the same logic would apply to the President of India under Article 111. 'The President can also withhold and fail Bills passed in the Parliament,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The Solicitor General argued that a Governor had 'four' options under Article 200 — grant assent to the Bill; withhold assent to the Bill due to which the proposed law lapses; reserve the Bill for consideration to the President. But in case the Governor exercises the 'fourth' option to return the Bill to the State Assembly, which re-passes the Bill, the Governor is bound to grant assent. He could not withhold the Bill though he could refer it to the President on the ground of repugnancy. High Constitutional authorities, including the President and Governors, were presumed to act within the law and uphold the dignity of their offices, Mr. Mehta said. Governors were not 'nobodies', he submitted. They were representatives of the President, who was bound by the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, which represented the interests of the nation. 'Governorship is not a sanctum for retired politicians,' Mr. Mehta said. The Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General whether, over the years, the expectations of the Founding Fathers and Mothers regarding these Constitutional functionaries had actually been fulfilled. 'Governors and the elected Ministers of the States are expected to function in harmony, are they?' the Chief Justice queried. Justice Narasimha reasoned that Constitutional interpretation by courts could not be idealistic. Judicial review had to take into account the present day realities. Governors and Speakers were idealistically considered high offices, presumed to function within the law, but the flood of litigation said otherwise. The judge referred to the cases filed in the apex court under the anti-defection law (the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution). The Tenth Schedule was introduced with the best intentions and with ideal expectations about the high office of the Speaker, Justice Narasimha said. But views had changed over the years. 'Constitutional interpretation cannot be static,' Justice Narasimha observed. The Chief Justice said the outcome of the litigation in many Tenth Schedule cases had been 'operation success, patient dead'. Mr. Mehta enumerated instances when Governors were not bound by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. One of these instances was the Governor's application of discretion to decide which party or political front had a majority to form a government in a State. 'We have seen how, in some cases, the Governors have exercised their discretion and end up in litigation in the apex court,' the CJI responded. The Solicitor General dismissed them as 'aberrations'. It was 'hazardous to interpret the Constitution based on aberrations', Mr. Mehta said.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
The Hindu Morning Digest: August 20, 2025
Amit Shah to move three bills for removal of PM, CMs, Ministers held on serious criminal charges Union Home Minister Amit Shah is likely to introduce three bills in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) to provide legal framework for removal of the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers and Ministers in States and union territories who are 'arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges.' Nearly 800 rescued as two Mumbai monorails halt midway amid heavy rains, CM Fadnavis promises inquiry Chaos prevailed on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) evening after two separate incidents of Mumbai Monorail breakdowns left 782 passengers stranded mid-air, triggering massive rescue operations by the Mumbai Fire Brigade (MFB), police and emergency services. Emergency response teams including MFB, Police, Monorail staff, and 108 ambulance services were mobilised at both sites. Centre to introduce law to prohibit real money gaming firms, official says The Union Cabinet on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) approved a Bill to effectively prohibit real money games (RMGs) online, a multi-billion dollar industry that counts fantasy sports platforms such as Dream11 and card game apps, including PokerBaazi. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 is now headed to Parliament and is likely to be tabled on Wednesday. 'Important opportunity' faces India, China, says Foreign Minister Wang Yi Striking a note of reconciliation, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) that the bilateral relationship between India and China is facing an 'important opportunity'. Speaking at the 24th meeting between the Special Representatives on the India-China boundary question, Mr. Wang indirectly referred to the negative impact of the 2020 Galwan clashes and said, the 'setbacks' of the recent past did not advance the 'interest of the people' of both countries. Presidential Reference Bench says Supreme Court stepped in to resolve an 'egregious situation' in Tamil Nadu Governor case A Presidential Reference Bench of five judges headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai observed on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) that the Supreme Court's move to grant deemed assent to 10 crucial Tamil Nadu State Bills may have been a way to resolve an 'egregious situation' created by the Tamil Nadu Governor who had been sitting over them since 2020. After CSDS psephologist deletes X post, BJP accuses Congress of making 'baseless claims' on voter fraud The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) accused the Congress of making 'baseless' claims about 'vote theft' and targeting the Election Commission of India in 'collusion' with a Delhi-based think tank. This came after Sanjay Kumar, a psephologist and a professor with the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), who had shared voter data from two Maharashtra Assembly seats related to last year's State election in a post on X on Sunday (August 17, 2025), subsequently deleted his post on Tuesday (August 19, 2025), apologising for posting erroneous data. Israel demands release of all hostages after Hamas backs new truce offer A senior Israeli official on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) said the government stood firm on its call for the release of all hostages in any future Gaza deal, after Hamas accepted a new truce proposal. Mediators are awaiting an official Israeli response to the plan, a day after Hamas signalled its readiness for a fresh round of talks aimed at ending nearly two years of war. Cabinet panel on security clears project to procure 97 LCA Mark 1A fighter jets for IAF The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) approved the procurement of 97 LCA Mark 1A fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF). A senior defence official confirmed that the project had been cleared by the CCS, calling it a major boost to the government's Make in India initiative. The aircraft will be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). Operation Sindoor lessons now part of NCERT syllabus Over three months after the Pahalgam killings and subsequent military conflict between India and Pakistan, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has introduced two new modules on 'Operation Sindoor — A saga of valour' for Classes 3 to 8 and 'Operation Sindoor — A mission of honour and bravery,' for Classes 9 to 12. Death toll from northern Pakistan monsoon floods rises to almost 400 Rescuers and residents resumed searching on Tuesday for survivors as the death toll from five days of torrential rain rose to almost 400, with authorities warning monsoon downpours would continue until the weekend. Torrential rains across Pakistan's north have caused flooding and landslides that have swept away entire villages, leaving many residents trapped in the rubble and scores missing.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Presidential Reference Bench says Supreme Court stepped in to resolve an ‘egregious situation' in Tamil Nadu Governor case
A Presidential Reference Bench of five judges headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai observed on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) that the Supreme Court's move to grant deemed assent to 10 crucial Tamil Nadu State Bills may have been a way to resolve an 'egregious situation' created by the Tamil Nadu Governor who had been sitting over them since 2020. The five-judge Bench found the facts of the Tamil Nadu case 'glaring' to say the least. 'Were the Bills pending since 2020?' Justice Surya Kant asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani. The Attorney General replied that the facts in the Tamil Nadu case may be correct, but there were reasons the Governor had kept the Bills pending. He said he did not want to get into the facts. 'Is it because the facts are so glaring that you do not want to get into them?' Chief Justice Gavai asked. Justice P.S. Narasimha said the facts of the Tamil Nadu case did not consist of any 'pudding' and were stark in themselves. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, seconded Mr. Venkataramani's submission that a Reference Bench need not get into the facts of the Tamil Nadu case, but merely answer the questions raised by the President. The role of the Reference Bench was to maintain the balance envisioned by the Constitution, Mr. Mehta submitted. But Justice Kant persisted to ask what a Constitutional court was expected to do if the facts were as obvious as those found in the Tamil Nadu case. 'It seems such an egregious situation came into existence in the Tamil Nadu case, that the Supreme Court was compelled to handle the situation and resolve the issue. The conclusion was not meant to act as a precedent,' Justice Narasimha referred to the circumstances which had led to the April 8 judgment. The oral remarks from the Bench came on the first day of hearing the Presidential Reference which has questioned the power of the apex court to impose three-month deadlines on the President and Governors to deal with State Bills which come to them for assent. The reference was issued by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution merely a month after a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in a judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case on April 8, plugged a Constitutional silence by fixing specific time limits for Governors and the President to assent, withhold approval or reserve State Bills for further consideration under Articles 200 and 201. The Division Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala had invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to grant 'deemed assent' to Tamil Nadu's State Bills. It had held that laws which remain pending with the President and Governor beyond the specified three-month deadline would be deemed as approved. On Tuesday (August 19, 2025), Mr. Venkataramani argued the court could not have used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to supplant substantive law and 'build a new edifice where none existed' in the Tamil Nadu case. The top law officer submitted the Constitution did not impose any time limits on the President and Governors while dealing with State Bills. He contended that the power of the apex court under Article 142 cannot exceed the power of its creator (the Constitution). Mr. Venkataramani urged that the judiciary must not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution and take over Executive and Legislative functions by granting 'deemed assent' to State Bills.
