Latest news with #RNRavi
Scroll.in
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Tamil Nadu approaches SC against Madras High Court stay on vice chancellor appointment laws
The Tamil Nadu government on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court order that stayed nine Acts related to the appointment of vice-chancellors in state-run universities, The Hindu reported. On May 21, the High Court ordered a stay on the Acts despite an April 8 verdict in the Supreme Court that declared that the bills would be deemed to have received the governor's assent from the date they were passed a second time by the legislature. Most of the bills are related to higher education, including measures to remove the governor as chancellor of state universities. The state government had notified the Acts after the April 8 verdict. However, a public interest litigation petition was filed in the Madras High Court on May 12 against the constitutional validity of the Acts, according to The Hindu. On May 21, the High Court stayed the Acts on the ground that the 2018 University Grants Commission Regulations would prevail over state legislation by virtue of the doctrine of repugnancy. The doctrine of repugnancy in Article 254 of the Constitution says that if a state law is inconsistent with a central law or an existing law, the central law prevails, and the state law is void to the extent of the conflict. In its petition filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the Tamil Nadu government said that there was a strong presumption of constitutionality against the laws passed by the legislature, The Hindu reported. 'Courts should be slow in passing interim orders in matters challenging constitutionality of provisions and against the strong presumption of constitutionality,' the petition said. 'The High Court passed an interim order directing stay of operation of provisions which take away power of appointment of vice chancellor from the hands of the chancellor and vest the same in the government.' It also noted that a vacation bench of the High Court had entertained a writ petition from a lawyer belonging to a political party, adding that an order was passed without granting an opportunity to the state government to defend its case, The Hindu reported. 'The matter was heard during vacations till 6.30 pm, beyond court hours, and the impugned order was passed,' the state government said. The petition also flagged issues pertaining to judicial impropriety and discipline in keeping a hands-off approach. The Supreme Court's ruling on April 8 came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for over three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. Of the 10 re-enacted bills sent to the president in November 2023, one was approved, seven were rejected and two were pending. The Supreme Court held that Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 bills, some of which were pending since January 2020, and refer them to the president after they were re-enacted by the Assembly was ' illegal and erroneous '. It declared that the 10 bills would be deemed to have received the governor's assent from the date they were passed a second time by the legislature. It also set aside any action taken by the president based on the governor's reference. In its 414-page judgement, the Supreme Court also imposed a three-month deadline on the president to approve or reject such bills.
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- General
- New Indian Express
Tamil Nadu to frame rules for nominating PwDs to local bodies after governor assents to Bills
CHENNAI: The state government will soon frame rules for nominating persons with disabilities (PwDs) to all local bodies since the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies (Amendment) Act, 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1994 became laws after Governor RN Ravi gave assent to the two Bills. The Bills were published in the state gazette on Monday. When contacted, a senior official told TNIE that the government would soon begin the process of drafting rules in consultation with legal experts. 'It usually takes some time, but the government will take prompt action in this regard,' the official said. The legislation paves the way for the nomination of around 14,000 PwDs to urban and rural local bodies, ensuring their voices are heard in local governance and enabling them to take up leadership roles. A total of 650 PwDs will be nominated to urban local bodies. Similarly, 12,913 PwDs will be nominated to village panchayats, 388 to panchayat unions, and 37 to district panchayats. Chief Minister MK Stalin had introduced the two Bills in the Assembly on April 16. They were passed on April 29.
Time of India
2 days ago
- General
- Time of India
Stalin: Fear of litigation prompts Ravi to give assent to bills; still 14 bills pending
Chennai: Chief minister M K Stalin on Tuesday said governor R N Ravi could have given assent to the two bills that reserved seats in local bodies for people with disabilities (PwD) for fear of litigation. The governor's office is still sitting on 14 bills, including the Kalaignar University Bill, which proposes establishing a university named after former chief minister M Karunanidhi, sources told TOI. Asked for his response to the governor giving assent to bills passed by the assembly in its last sitting, Stalin told reporters here, "That was expected. Not a big issue. It was passed by the legislature and sent. Maybe he gave assent because he was afraid that we would go to court. Nothing else." The Supreme Court had on April 8, set a timeline for governors and the President to decide on bills. Sources told TOI that governor Ravi had since then given assent to eight bills, including four appropriation bills. Among the bills awaiting assent are the Tamil Nadu Fiscal Responsibility (Amendment) Bill and the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Bill. These were passed by the legislature in Feb and Dec 2024, respectively. Other pending bills include one to protect economically weaker sections, especially farmers and women self-help groups, from coercive recovery of loans by microfinance institutions. A bill to amend the Goondas Act to punish dumping of biomedical waste in Tamil Nadu from neighbouring states is also pending. When asked about the pending bills in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on timelines, DMK MP P Wilson stated: "Anyone who has faith in the judicial system and believes in the Constitution and the rule of law must respect the Supreme Court's verdict, as it is final. If the governor chooses to defy the court's order, the law should take its own course. However, I want to know whether the Prime Minister is encouraging such defiance of the court's order. Can the President of India remain silent to such a contemptuous act? The governor should have been sacked when the Supreme Court indicted him for malafide actions."
News18
2 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Governor Ravi Approves 2 Bills For Nominating Disabled People To Tamil Nadu Civic Bodies
Last Updated: Governor RN Ravi approved two bills allowing Tamil Nadu to nominate persons with disabilities for civil sector positions. CM MK Stalin acknowledged the approval. In an attempt to empower specially abled people in Tamil Nadu, Governor RN Ravi on Tuesday approved two bills that enable the state government to nominate persons with disabilities (PwDs) for undertaking positions in civil sector. With the approval, now the Tamil Nadu government can nominate PwDs for the municipal administration and rural development departments. In response, Chief Minister MK Stalin took a dig at Governor Ravi while acknowledging his decision of showing green signal to the bills. CM Stalin said, 'The Governor has approved the bill for disabled people today … It was expected as we passed it in the legislative resolution. Maybe he was afraid that we would go to court if he didn't give his assent." Notably, the bills amend two key state laws. The bills were presented and passed in the state assembly on April 16. It empowers the government with the authority to directly nominate PwDs to various departments of local governance. Earlier, representation of PwDs in local bodies in the state was extremely low, with only 35 such individuals serving in urban local bodies, according to media reports. The Governor's acceptance of the bills marks a key development, especially in light of a recent Supreme Court order in regard to the governors' constitutional responsibilities. Governor Ravi had earlier held back from approving several bills, prompting the state to petition the top court. In a landmark ruling, the court slammed the Governor's inaction as unconstitutional and unlawful, and directed that specific timelines be followed when dealing with bills. The bills were presented with focus on addressing historical under-representation and ensuring that PwDs have a formal voice in local governance. The amendments pertain to two significant laws, namely the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. They empower the state to nominate PwDs to a range of local bodies, including town panchayats, municipal councils, municipal corporations, village panchayats, panchayat union councils, and district panchayats. A main feature of the legislation is that it authorises state for direct nomination — bypassing the electoral process — thus reducing barriers to participation. Each local governance body must involve at least one nominated PwD, with councils of more than 100 members required to have two. The nominated PwD members will work for a period equal to that of elected representatives, which is generally a five-year term — and will be entitled to honoraria, allowances, and other benefits on par with elected councillors. However, they will be barred from voting in council decisions.
NDTV
3 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
MK Stalin's "Scared" Swipe As Tamil Nadu Governor Clears 2 Bills
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi cleared two Bills after a Supreme Court ruling criticised his prior blockage of legislation. The Bills promote disability inclusion in local bodies. Chennai: Nearly two months after a landmark Supreme Court verdict pulled him up for blocking Bills passed by the Assembly, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi today cleared two Bills, a month after the House passed them. Chief Minister MK Stalin, whose government won a big victory in the top court in April, said the Governor's assent was "expected" and that he was "scared" the state government may approach the court again. The two Bills pave the way for the nomination of persons with disabilities to urban and local bodies in Tamil Nadu. Aimed at social inclusion, the Bills will impact and empower over 12,000 persons with disabilities. Chief Minister Stalin said the Governor's assent was the result of the Supreme Court ruling. "This assent was expected. The Governor would be scared that we would move the court again." In its April 8 verdict, the Supreme Court had said the Governor's move to block 10 Bills was "illegal" and "arbitrary". The court had then used its special powers to clear the Bills. The DMK government welcomed the verdict, amid a larger debate on whether the Supreme Court can set a deadline for the President and Governors. The ruling by the bench of Justice JD Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said the Bills were passed by the Assembly twice and the Governor must have cleared them. Article 200 of the Constitution lays down the options before the Governor when a Bill passed by the state House is presented before him. The Governor can give his assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President. The Governor can send the Bill back to the House or Houses for reconsideration of some provisions. If the House passes it again, the Governor shall not withhold assent. The Governor can reserve for the President's consideration a Bill which he/she feels is at odds with the Constitution, directive principles of state policy, or is a matter of national importance. In its April order, the court prescribed timelines to exercise these options and said missing them would invite judicial scrutiny of the Governor's action. The court earmarked a one-month deadline for Governors to withhold assent to a Bill and reserve it for the President's review with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. When a Bill is reserved without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, this deadline will be three months. If a Bill is presented to a Governor after reconsideration by the state Assembly, he/she must clear it within a month. Any exercise of the Governor under Article 200, the court said, is amenable to judicial review. The court clarified that it is "in no way undermining the Governor's powers". "All actions of the Governor must align with the principle of parliamentary democracy." The Supreme Court's ruling effectively set a three-month deadline for Presidential assent to Bills, too. The court said the President's functions are amenable to judicial review under Article 201. Amid a debate over whether the top court ruling amounted to judicial overreach, President Droupadi Murmu wrote to the Supreme Court last month and asked if timelines could be imposed on Governors. President Murmu asked if a Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable -- subject to a trial in court. She cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office. "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?" President Murmu asked the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on the matter.
