Legal process must prevail over face-off
On May 14, 2025, the President of India, exercising her powers under Article 143 of the Constitution, sought the Supreme Court's opinion on the imposition of timelines for the President and the Governors to act under Articles 200 and 201. The President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
This was apparently necessary because of the judgement of the Supreme Court's Bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on April 8, 2025. Before dealing with the questions, it is essential to set out the context in which they were raised.
This case refers to the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly, which passed 12 Bills and forwarded them to the Governor between January 13, 2020, and April 28, 2023, for his assent under Article 200. These Bills lay dormant till October 2023. The Governor's inaction led to filing a petition requiring the Governor to act.
Under Article 200, if a Bill passed by the Legislature is presented to the Governor, he may either assent to the Bill or withhold assent therefrom. The Governor is required to give his assent as soon as possible. This reflects that he must do so expeditiously despite no fixed timeline. The Governor can also return a bill to the Legislature for reconsideration. If the Legislature, upon reconsideration, passes the Bill with or without amendments, the Governor cannot withhold assent therefrom.
The Governor may also reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, who, under Article 201, may either give or withhold his assent. Though no timeline has been prescribed, it must be implied that the President will do so expeditiously.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
23 minutes ago
- India Today
Festering wound: Vice President backs RSS, slams Emergency-era Preamble edits
Echoing the words of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Saturday slammed the Congress for including the words 'socialist' 'secular' and 'integrity' in the Preamble to the Constitution during the Emergency calling it a 'travesty of justice' and 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana'.Calling the added words nasoor (festering wound), he said that the alterations posed 'existential challenges' and called on the nation to reflect on the original intent of the Constitution's at a book launch in Delhi, he called the Preamble the soul of the Constitution and claimed that the particular portion of the constitution is not changeable. "The Preamble is not changeable or alterable. It is the basis on which the constitution has grown. The Preamble is the seed of the Constitution. It is the soul of the constitution," said remarks came days after RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale called for a national debate on whether the words 'socialist' and 'secular' should remain in the also argued that these terms were not part of the Constitution as originally drafted by BR Ambedkar and were inserted during the Emergency (1975–77).Referring to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which inserted the three words, he said it was done 'casually, farcically, and with no sense of propriety' during a time when several opposition leaders were jailed under Emergency remarks have sparked a political backlash, with the Congress and other opposition parties accusing the RSS of 'political opportunism' and a 'deliberate assault' on the Constitution's foundational are changing the soul of the Constitution by this flash of words, added during the period of Emergency — the darkest period for the Constitution of the words have been added as . These words will create upheaval. Addition of these words in the Preamble Vice-President of India (@VPIndia) June 28, 2025An editorial in Organiser, a magazine affiliated with the RSS, supported the call for review, saying it was not aimed at dismantling the Constitution but at restoring its 'original spirit,' free from what it called 'distortions' introduced during the Congress-led Emergency.'It is nothing but belittling the civilisational wealth and knowledge of this country for thousands of years. It is a sacrilege of the spirit of Sanatan,' the Vice President also noted the tiresome work undertaken by Ambedkar in drafting the constitution and the preamble, and said that the government of the time should have focused on it rather than making changes to it.- EndsWith PTI inputs Must Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28 minutes ago
- Business Standard
ECI begins Bihar electoral roll review, says only Indian citizens can vote
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Saturday announced the launch of a special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, ahead of Assembly elections scheduled for later this year. The poll body reiterated that, under the Constitution, only Indian citizens are eligible to vote. Referring to Article 326, the ECI stated that Indian citizenship, a minimum age of 18 years, and ordinary residency in a constituency are the constitutional requirements for voting. 'The Constitution of India is supreme. All citizens, political parties, and the Election Commission of India follow the Constitution,' the Commission said in a statement. The clarification comes amid rising criticism from Opposition parties, which have questioned the intent and timing of the revision exercise. Roll verification extended to five other states The ECI is conducting similar intensive roll verification drives in five additional states — Assam, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal — all due for elections in 2026. The review includes efforts to identify and remove ineligible voters, particularly foreign nationals who may be fraudulently enrolled. Officials have been instructed to check the place of birth of registered voters as part of the exercise. Massive mobilisation underway in Bihar In Bihar, the review has begun with the deployment of nearly 78,000 booth level officers (BLOs), with more than 20,000 additional BLOs to be appointed for new polling stations. Over 100,000 volunteers will assist vulnerable voters, including the elderly, the ill, persons with disabilities, the poor, and other disadvantaged groups. Political parties are participating in the process, having appointed 154,977 booth level agents (BLAs) to work alongside BLOs during voter verification. The ECI said it is open to further appointments. New enumeration forms are being printed and distributed to all 78.9 million electors across Bihar's 243 Assembly constituencies. Of these, 49.6 million voters listed as of 1 January 2003 need only verify and update their details. INDIA bloc alleges political targeting The INDIA alliance in Bihar has strongly opposed the revision, calling it a 'conspiracy' to favour the BJP-led NDA in the upcoming elections. At a joint press conference, RJD's Tejashwi Yadav, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera, and CPI(ML) general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya said they would send a delegation to the EC and warned of further action if adequate answers were not provided. Yadav questioned the timing: 'If the EC was so serious about holding this exercise, why did it not begin immediately after last year's Lok Sabha polls?' He alleged the decision came after Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's recent visit to Delhi and claimed the EC may have been directed to act in the ruling coalition's favour. Fears of disenfranchisement of marginalised voters Yadav criticised the requirement for birth certificates of voters and their parents, claiming it would disproportionately affect Dalits, Muslims, and backward classes. 'It appears that those unable to furnish the requisite documents may have their names removed from the voter list,' he said. He also warned that exclusion from the rolls could result in loss of welfare benefits, calling the move 'aligned with the anti-people thinking of the BJP-RSS'. The RJD leader pointed out that the last similar revision took two years and questioned the feasibility of completing this one in a month. 'If it's possible to finish this in 25 working days, I challenge the Centre to complete the caste census in two months,' he said. Congress slams EC's 'silence' Congress leader Pawan Khera accused the poll body of wilful inaction. 'Mahatma Gandhi's three monkeys saw, heard and spoke no evil. The EC sees, hears, and speaks no truth,' he said. Khera added, 'When Rahul Gandhi raised concerns over Assembly polls in Maharashtra, it was the BJP that responded. What do we make of that?' He also alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was rattled by recent opinion polls predicting a weak NDA performance in Bihar and may have used the EC 'as a toolkit'. He warned that Bihar could become a 'laboratory' for similar exercises nationwide targeting deprived sections.
Mint
44 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Runs Up Supreme Court Winning Streak, Amassing More Power
The US Supreme Court's just-completed term had a clear winner: President Donald Trump. With a 6-3 ruling Friday restricting the power of judges to issue nationwide blocks on presidential initiatives, the court put an exclamation mark on a term dominated by Trump victories. The court's conservative supermajority sided with Trump on both broad legal questions and an unprecedented barrage of emergency requests to let his policies take effect right away. The end result was a stack of decisions deferring to Trump. The court let him discharge transgender people from the military, fire top officials at government agencies and open hundreds of thousands of migrants to deportation. The Supreme Court repeatedly reinstated Trump policies found by lower courts to be illegal, and it undercut judges who said the administration had violated their orders. At times, the court gave little if any explanation for its actions, even as liberal justices blasted the majority for rewarding what they said was Trump's lawlessness. 'The court treated him as if he were a normal president, and I think that was probably a mistake,' said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. The court has yet to grapple with 'what to do with the president who does not seem to be motivated by public spiritedness or the good of the country and doesn't necessarily subscribe to American values like due process and liberty and equality.' The ruling Friday gives the administration a new tool to try to stop judges from putting policies on hold. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett faulted three trial judges for issuing so-called nationwide injunctions halting Trump's plan to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,' said Barrett, one of three Trump appointees on the court. Trump, who thanked by name the six Republican-appointed justices in the majority, declared the decision a 'monumental victory.' He said the administration would move to lift holds judges have placed on a number of his policies, mentioning fights over refugee resettlement, federal spending and so-called sanctuary cities. 'The Supreme Court has finally put a stop to this judicial activism, which has abused our constitutional separation of powers for too long,' Alabama's Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in an emailed statement. The decision was one of five rulings the court released Friday as it issued the term's last opinions in argued cases. Among other decisions was one that backed Trump's position by declaring that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school lessons for religious reasons. Earlier in the month, the court agreed with Trump in another culture-war clash, upholding state bans on certain medical treatments for transgender children. The court on Monday and Thursday will likely indicate new cases the justices will hear in their next nine-month term, which will start in October. Trump suffered a rare setback in May when the court blocked the administration from using a rarely used wartime law to send about 176 Venezuelans to a Salvadoran prison before they had a chance to make their case to a judge. 'This ruling was particularly significant because it showed the court's willingness to enforce constitutional constraints even on immigration enforcement — typically an area where the court defers strongly to executive authority,' said Stephanie Barclay, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown Law School. But the following month, the court appeared to undercut the decision when it let the administration resume quickly deporting migrants to countries other than their own. The court gave no explanation for the decision, which lifted a judge's order that gave people 10 days notice and a chance to argue they would be at risk of torture. The birthright citizenship case didn't directly concern the legality of the restrictions, which would upend a longstanding constitutional right. Trump seeks to jettison what has been the widespread understanding that the Constitution's 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone born on US soil. The executive order would restrict that to babies with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident. The practical effect of the ruling remains to be seen. The 22 states challenging the citizenship plan can still argue at the lower court level that they need a nationwide halt to avoid the financial costs and administrative headaches that would result if the restrictions applied in neighboring jurisdictions. And Barrett explicitly left open the prospect that people challenging policies can press class action lawsuits. A prominent critic of nationwide injunctions, Notre Dame law professor Samuel Bray, hailed the decision — but also predicted a surge of class action suits and new court orders blocking the citizenship policy. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' Bray said in a statement. Barrett cast the ruling as a nonpartisan one, noting that the Biden administration also sought to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions. 'It's easy to see why. By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached 'a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act was immediately frozen by a federal district court,' Barrett wrote, quoting from a law review article co-written by Bray and University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Critics of the court said that characterization missed a key point. 'It is true, of course, that universal injunctions have bedeviled both prior Democratic and Republican administrations,' Michael Dorf, a professor who teaches constitutional law and federal courts at Cornell Law School, said in an email. 'But the court fails to recognize the fact that eliminating a tool for courts to rein in the executive branch is especially perilous at this particular moment, when we have an administration that is already inclined to take a casual attitude towards judicial orders.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
