Supreme Court fixes Presidential Reference hearing from August 19, to first hear T.N. and Kerala on maintainability
Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference highlights on July 29, 2025
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said the hearing on the Reference would kick off on August 19 with the two States, variously represented by senior advocates K.K. Venugopal, A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, getting an hour to convince the Court to return the Reference unanswered.
Mr. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, said the Bench must hear the States on the question of maintainability of the Reference before the Union Government began its submissions in support of the presidential questions.
'A preliminary hearing should be held on the maintainability of the Reference. This should be done first,' Mr. Venugopal pressed.
Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani intervened graciously, saying the States must get their 'full say', after which he would respond on the question of maintainability and continue with his submissions on behalf of the Reference.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar, asked the parties to file their respective written submissions on or prior to August 12.
The Union Government would be heard on August 19, 20, 21, 26. The opposing parties would submit their response on August 28 and September 2, 3 and 9. The Union Government would then rebut on September 10.
'Timelines must be followed scrupulously,' the Chief Justice told the lawyers.
The Bench said no lawyer, except Mr. Venugopal, would be allowed to appear online. Mr. Mehta supported wholeheartedly, says the distinguished counsel was 'sui generis' (unique).
The States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala has urged the Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference, arguing it was really an 'appeal in disguise'.
Kerala, represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.K. Sasi, said the President could only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the Supreme Court.
Quoting judicial precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the State said powers of the Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution have been the subject of three separate authoritative judgments in the cases filed by the States of Telangana, Punjab and, finally, Tamil Nadu on April 8.
The State pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on April 8 had already addressed in detail the questions raised in the Presidential Reference in May.
'When the Supreme 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 decision of this Court on a question of law is binding on all courts and authorities. Hence, the President can refer a question of law only when this Court has not decided it,' Kerala submitted.
If the government wanted to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative petition in the Supreme Court, and not take the route of Presidential Reference, Kerala has contended.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court , as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda.A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people."It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents."We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court."The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide.


Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays HC verdict restoring protected status to Kanjurmarg landfill
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Bombay High Court verdict that had restored the status of the Kanjurmarg dumping ground to a 'protected forest'. The stay order has paved the way for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to continue to dump solid waste at Mumbai's only active dump yard, where around 6,000 to 10,000 tonnes of garbage is dumped every day. The stay order has paved the way for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to continue to dump solid waste at Mumbai's only active dump yard The Supreme Court order was delivered on a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the state government, challenging the May 2 verdict of the high court, which had set aside a 2009 decision of the BMC to denotify the protected forest status of the land, so that they could use it as a dumping yard. On Friday, a division bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran took note of the submissions by solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, that the landfill had been incorrectly notified as a protected forest. As a result, the state contended, it had de-notified the 118 hectares in question in 2009, so that the land could be used as a dumping ground. 'We will stay the order,' said the apex court. When a lawyer representing the state government opposed the order, the bench asked, 'You tell us where the garbage can be dumped now.' The original PIL, filed in 2013 by non-profit Vanashakti, had challenged the environmental clearances given for the setting up of the landfill on protected forest land. It argued that the 2009 de-notification of the plot violated procedure as noted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. When restoring the protected forest status of the landfill in May, the high court had also given the BMC three months to comply with its order. The state then filed the SLP in the Supreme Court on July 26, arguing, 'The impugned judgment (…) would have a disastrous effect on the city of Mumbai, as there being no other similar waste disposal ground and landfill. If… it is to be discontinued, the entire city of Mumbai would be deprived of a solid waste dumping area and its residents will have to suffer unnecessary and untold hardships and major health risks.' It further clarified that only 20.76 hectares of the 141.77 hectares that were de-notified had a mangrove forest on them, and that they had not been impacted by or included in the waste-processing site in the decade and a half that the BMC had been using it. The SP argued that the plot's original notification as a protected forest was erroneous. Stalin D, director, Vanashakti, said they had been provided with a copy of the SLP on Thursday, only a day before the hearing in the Supreme Court, leaving little time to have their lawyers reach Delhi or prepare for their submissions in court. 'The SC stayed the HC order within two minutes, without hearing us or opening our file. We fought for 15 years against all odds, got a good judgement, only to have it overturned in a few minutes, where we weren't given a fair chance,' said Stalin.


The Print
41 minutes ago
- The Print
Victory of young and educated auspicious sign: Pushkar Dhami after panchayat poll results
'I am happy that a large number of young candidates from ordinary backgrounds have won. I congratulate them all and appeal to them to work collectively for the development of Gram Sabhas, which will play a big role in realising Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision of a developed India,' he told reporters. Dhami on Friday extended his congratulations to several such young people who were elected officer bearers at the panchayat level. Dehradun, Aug 1 (PTI) The victory of several young women in the Uttarakhand panchayat polls was hailed as a reflection of an aspirational change at the grassroots, with Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami saying the election results augur well. In his byte, Dhami mentioned 21-year-old Priyanka Negi, who was elected the pradhan of Sarkot village, located near the state's summer capital, Gairsain, in Chamoli district. Sarkot has been adopted by the state government to be developed as a model village. Earlier, the chief minister spoke to her on the phone. 'Sarkot is being developed as an Adarsh Gram. We will develop such Adarsh Grams in all the districts where employment, self-employment opportunities, as well as all basic facilities are available. Victory of many young and educated representatives in this panchayat election is an auspicious sign, the government will provide full support to the panchayats,' Dhami said. Negi, who has studied up to graduation, defeated Priyanka Devi for the post of village head. On the phone, the chief minister told her that soon the chief development officers of all the districts would visit Sarkot to study the village. Dhami also invited Negi to come to Dehradun. Priyanka was not the only young woman to make it. Sakshi, 22, was elected the village head of Kui in Pabau block of Pauri district. She returned to her village after doing BTech from Dehradun with a resolve to do something for her area. Raveena, 24, won as a zila panchayat member candidate from Kotgaon Jakhol ward of Uttarkashi district. Political commentator Jaisingh Rawat welcomed the infusion of young blood at the level where it matters to the locals the most. 'Victory of young educated people …reflects that the spirit of the 73rd amendment to the Constitution, which envisions local self-government in rural areas through decentralisation of power and promotion of democracy at the grassroots, is gradually percolating down to the people,' he said. 'But the real change will come about only after devolution of power to panchayat bodies,' Rawat said. Three-tier panchayat elections were held in Uttarakhand in two phases on 24 and 28 February, the results of which were declared on Thursday and Friday. PTI ALM VN VN This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.