Latest news with #SC
Irish Independent
4 hours ago
- Lifestyle
- Irish Independent
Notions and necessities: From summer groceries right at your door to liquid gold, cool cocktails and zipping through treetops, it's all here
Down on the farm Green Earth Organics, run from an organic family farm in Co Galway, has recently expanded its online offering to over 800 grocery items, including the addition of par-baked breads from Carraig Rua Bakery in Co Leitrim. The new Summer Essentials box, delivered to your door with a click of the mouse, includes seasonal fruit and veg from selected small-scale organic growers, eggs, cheese and a loaf of sourdough bread, ready to be finished off in your oven. SC Summer Essentials Box, €50, delivery free for orders over €100, NOTION Life's a beach Kelly's Resort Hotel & Spa in Rosslare is something of an Irish institution, beloved by families for generations, and now offering a four-bedroom standalone Beach House (big enough for 11 people), with full self-catering or half-board packages. Even self-catering Beach House guests get to use the pool and leisure centre, as well as the evening entertainment, while half-board gets you breakfast and dinner in the hotel. With a private garden, barbecue and direct beach access, it's the best of both worlds for big groups or extended-family gatherings. SC To book weekly stays through the summer, call Ruth, tel: (053) 913-2114 or email info@ NECESSITY Scent of a woman Republic of Oud in Winthrop Arcade, Cork, is a destination fragrance boutique entirely dedicated to oud, the centuries-old scent known as liquid gold. It's an olfactory element beloved by celebs from Drake to Rihanna, and Republic of Oud showcases it in an array of incarnations from names like Ajmal, Monreale and Sora Dora. SC Ajmal Amir Two eau de parfum, €225, NOTION Way up in the treetops The family-friendly thrill of Zipit Forest Adventures is newly open at Djouce Park, Co Wicklow, where you can enjoy a full day out on the high ropes and ziplines. With a low-ropes course suitable for kids as young as three, as well as more adventurous routes through the treetops for ages seven to 77, it's the perfect combination of fresh air and adrenaline. Booking is now open, as well as at their locations in Tibradden Wood, Co Dublin, Farran Forest Park, Co Cork, and Lough Key Forest Park, Co Roscommon. SC NECESSITY Pucker up Rolling around at the bottom of every good woman's handbag is a lip gloss... if not five. This Le Labo lip balm is made with olive oil and shea butter to keep your lips hydrated. It's non-sticky – so you don't have to worry about your hair catching on your lips on a breezy day – plus it doesn't have a shine, making it a good unisex option for guys who don't want to look glossy. It's also unscented so there's no fear of added perfumes working against your hydration. OD Le Labo lip balm, €19/15ml, Cocktail hour I say 'cocktails', you say 'oui, oui'! If you can't escape to the French Riviera, you can at least trot down to Balfes bar and brasserie at Dublin's Westbury Hotel to try out the new La Vie en Rosé cocktail menu. The menu's namesake cocktail is a delightful blend of Malfy gin, Lillet rosé, peach liqueur, peach syrup, lime and rosé crémant. Sit out on their terrace and sip a glass of Mûre Sauvage to transport yourself to the Continent. Duolingo optional. OD Balfes, 2 Balfe St, Dublin 2, NECESSITY Ice ice baby Nespresso is celebrating the summer season with a much-needed cool-down. Temper the rare heatwave with their range of cold coffees in flavours like pistachio vanilla and coconut vanilla. Or for an extra boost to your morning cuppa, try the Active Coffee+ with vitamin B6. With added summer-collection accessories available such as silicone ice trays, sunshine-yellow flasks and small glass bowls to make affogato, you can be your own at-home barista. OD Iced coffee capsules from €6.50; Vertuo Pop machines from €99, Nespresso boutique, Duke Street, Dublin 2, and NOTION Get your glad rags on English brand Never Fully Dressed, founded by Lucy Aylen, is now offering a premium collection for fashion lovers who want a bit more glamour in their wardrobes. Featuring dresses, hand-beaded clutches and raffia-trimmed shirts and trousers, there's plenty of options for big summer occasions. Wear this mirror-embellished dress in the sunlight to become your own personal disco ball and bring the party wherever you go. OD Dress, €425; clutch, €130,
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Karur temple closed in 2018 following caste clash reopened as per Madras HC order
KARUR: Acting on court orders, the HR&CE department-administered Mariamman temple at Chinnadharapuram in the district was reopened for public worship amid tight police security on Friday evening. The temple was closed in 2018 following a caste clash. The temple, which has been under the HR&CE department since 1973, had members of various communities participate in pujas and other rituals until 2018 when SC and MBC members involved in an alleged clash. With both groups approaching the Madurai Bench of the Madras HC, the temple remained closed since then. During the hearing on July 15, the court instructed HR&CE officials to take steps to resume worship at the temple and to display a notice board announcing that all communities are allowed to offer prayers. As per the direction, officials placed the notice board in front of the temple on Thursday. Learning this, a group of MBC members assembled in front of the temple the same day and removed the notice board. Despite official talks, the MBC community opposed the temple's reopening, stating that the issue was pending before court. The HR&CE officials then lodged a complaint against them with the Chinnatharapuram police, who then registered a case. On Friday evening, a team of officials led by HR&CE Assistant Commissioner M Ramanikandan opened the temple following which members of both the MBC and SC communities entered inside and offered prayers.
New Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
'Dalits refused booking of wedding halls in Tiruppur's Sivanmalai foothills'
TIRUPPUR: Wedding hall owners at Sivanmalai in Kangeyam of Tiruppur district are suspected of caste discrimination against Scheduled Castes. Officials from the district administration said an investigation into the matter is underway. It has been alleged Dalit people are finding it difficult to book wedding halls located in the foothills of Sivanmalai to hold auspicious events, including weddings. P Kalimuthu, district secretary of the Aathi Thamizhar Munnetra Kazhagam, said, "People from not only Tiruppur district but also from nearby districts come to the Murugan Temple at Sivanmalai. There is a belief among the public that if auspicious events, including marriages, are held at Sivanmalai, they will get the grace of Lord Murugan. But SC people are refused booking of private halls in the foothills of Sivanmalai." "Out of the 20 wedding halls two belong to the trusts of two specific castes. All other halls are private halls. The norms for halls state that all castes should be allowed. But these halls do not allow people from Scheduled Castes to hold auspicious events. The situation is similar in Kangeyam city. Hall owners fear people from other castes will not book their halls if they allow people from scheduled castes,," he added. "Scheduled Caste people are facing great difficulty in booking halls for auspicious days. Sometimes, they hold weddings in their village temples and host receptions and other events by setting up tents in their homes. Only a few socially minded people provide halls to SC people. The state government should conduct an investigation and take appropriate action in this regard," Kalimuthu further said.
Indian Express
15 hours 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
Indian Express
18 hours ago
- 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.
