&w=3840&q=100)
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
Rimjhim Singh New Delhi
The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported.
Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading.
Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable
The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'.
The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon'ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'.'
Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases:
* State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana
* State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab
* State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481)
According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said.
'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself'
Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference.
'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.'
The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route.
Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges
Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said.
What the Supreme Court had held earlier
In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process.
On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state.
Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays.
Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bihar Assembly Elections: Supreme Court warns of intervention if voter roll shows mass exclusion
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it would "immediately step in" if it finds " mass exclusion " of voters in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. A division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi assured immediate "intervention" by the top court if the draft electoral roll, slated to be published on August 1 as part of SIR carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI), reveals mass exclusion of voters. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Others Data Analytics Degree Management Design Thinking Public Policy MBA Operations Management Technology others Leadership PGDM Finance Digital Marketing Data Science Product Management healthcare Healthcare Cybersecurity MCA Artificial Intelligence Project Management CXO Data Science Skills you'll gain: Duration: 16 Weeks Indian School of Business CERT-ISB Transforming HR with Analytics & AI India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Exec Cert Prog in AI for Biz India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 months IIM Lucknow SEPO - IIML CHRO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 28 Weeks MICA CERT-MICA SBMPR Async India Starts on undefined Get Details The bench sought to allay the apprehensions of the petitioners who argued that as many as 65 lakh voters have been excluded on the ground that either they are dead or have permanently shifted their place of residence. "Your apprehension is 65 lakh odd voters will not feature. ECI is seeking correction vis-a-vis 2025 entry. We're overviewing the thing as a judicial authority. If there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in. You bring 15 people saying they are alive, yet have been excluded, we will intervene," the bench verbally told the petitioners. The SC further said that the political parties should act as NGOs at this time to render their assistance in the process being undertaken ahead of assembly elections in Bihar scheduled to be held in November. Appearing on behalf of a petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that the ECI has issued a press release stating 65 lakh are either deceased or have permanently shifted. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of another petitioner, argued that only ECI knew who the said 65 lakh people were. He added that it would help the cause of the petitioners if ECI mentions the name of the said 65 lakh in the draft list. The bench said, if the draft list is conspicuously silent, it can be brought to court's notice. On the other hand, the counsel for ECI submitted that once objections to the exclusion of names are considered, the real picture would emerge as to who has been excluded. He added that "people are entitled to object. 30 days' time has been given to file objections. The petitioners should assist in having the names added". Live Events Speaking for the bench, Justice Kant verbally remarked that ECI is a constitutional institution, and the presumption was it would act "perfectly in accordance with the law". Justice Kant added, "If someone omitted as dead comes and says, 'I am very much alive', we will intervene." The SC has posted the matter for resumed hearing on August 12 and 13 when it would primarily deal with issues regarding the draft electoral roll.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
After Tuesday's Supreme Court endorsement, political parties should harness SIR's potential
Integral part of the calculus For the second time this month, the Supreme Court refrained from staying the special intensive revision (SIR) process being conducted in Bihar. This means that the draft electoral roll scheduled for release on August 1 stays firmly on track. The court's position was expected, considering the tone it had set the first time. Hearings will continue through next heavy lifting done by the electoral machinery, especially booth-level officers (BLOs) and registration officers, in delivering enumeration forms to each elector and collecting them within a month is commendable. In this round, SIR could touch almost all 7.9 cr electors in the base list. More importantly, the saturation would have given confidence to the court and others who had concerns about feasibility of the exercise ahead of polls expected in November. From segregated figures announced by EC, 22 lakh electors are deceased, 36 lakh permanently shifted or untraced, 7 lakh registered in multiple locations, and 1.2 lakh forms yet to be received. These names are very likely to miss being on the draft roll on Friday. Booth-level lists of these electors have been shared with political parties. The 7.24 cr electors whose signed forms have been received are likely to be on the draft electoral roll. August will have 30 days for parties and electors to lodge claims regarding those eligible but not on the draft roll, or to object to an ineligible name on the list. The electoral registration officer (ERO) will decide on all complaints. There will be no deletion without a notice and speaking order of the ERO/assistant ERO, while still allowing for appeal to the district magistrate and chief electoral is an opportunity for parties to guard their electoral base, particularly to locate the 36 lakh permanently shifted/untraced electors, and those who haven't yet submitted forms for whatever reason. This potentially leaves scope for genuine electors to be restored on the too many precedents, SIR may appear to reverse participation mobilisation that EC has pursued over the last 15-odd years, reflected in growing size of electorate and record voter turnout. Despite focus on eligibility of electors as specified in Article 326 of the Constitution, EC has declared that the main objective of SIR is to leave no eligible elector in Bihar behind. The Supreme Court specifically reminded the commission to focus more on inclusion, rather than electors, who tend to migrate, are being located through special camps, and new voters who qualify against additional cutoff dates of July 1 and October 1 are being specially followed up. 1 lakh BLOs have made at least three visits to each household in all 38 districts of Bihar. Also, there's EC's campaign via 5 lakh volunteers and 1.6 lakh booth-level agents (BLAs) of political has gone unnoticed is EC's nationwide effort to bring back into Bihar's electoral roll migrants still not enrolled at their places of work outside the state. More inclusion efforts, both for registration as well as for voting, could be on their apex court has reiterated its suggestion for Aadhaar and voter ID cards to be included as valid documents for registration on the electoral roll. EC's machinery is already committed to assisting electors in obtaining requisite documents on time, especially in support of those marginalised and in difficult does not have a citizenship certificate/card, though a range of cards providing sundry benefits assume citizenship of the holder. How much EC takes upon itself the burden of mobilising its own prescribed documents from aspiring electors, or the flexibility it allows in submission of these, will be keenly is empowering for a nation for its political parties to remain watchful over enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of its citizens. But adoption of well laid-out institutional procedures, including appeals to constitutional courts, must be the appropriate route, rather than knee-jerk conspiracy theories. Bringing up problems in the SIR process in Bihar is legitimate, as is expression of grievance inside and outside the genuine debate gets blurred when done and dusted elections, whether in Maharashtra or Karnataka and now Gujarat, are raked up. Worse still, when intentions and behaviour of EC, an institutional body whose incumbents are ever in flux, are deemed of a 'coloured reading' of demography in Bihar's electoral rolls, especially where citizenship issues are under active discussion, could last well beyond SIR. They may even extend to poll results. Election management has being unduly linked with political outcomes of late. This is an area where both election managers and political parties need to work ahead of assembly elections in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and West Bengal won't be free of rebuttals, irrespective of the outcome of petitions in the Supreme Court. But, in 1995, Bihar witnessed a successful surgery to rein in the menace of booth-capturing. EC had then earned its stripes. The state settling down with SIR could have a similar salutary impact on such an exercise, preliminary work for which has already commenced, in the rest of the country. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. TCS bench policy could lead to more than 12,000 job cuts, say employees Unlisted dreams, listed disappointments? NSDL's IPO leaves pre-IPO investors riled. Will TCS layoffs open the floodgates of mass firing at Indian IT firms? Sebi's settlement with market intermediaries: More mystery than transparency? Can Chyawanprash save Dabur in the age of Shark-Tank startups? Stock Radar: Thomas Cook breaks out from a Cup & Handle pattern; showing signs of momentum after 30% fall from highs Are fundamental tailwinds a stronger play than volatile markets? 6 mid-cap pharma stocks with an upside potential of over 22% These large-caps have 'strong buy' & 'buy' recos and an upside potential of more than 25% Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Guidelines to protect lawyers from summons is not immunity: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the guidelines proposed to protect lawyers from being summoned by investigating agencies for giving legal advice would not confer immunity on legal professionals who commit a crime. A view of Supreme Court (Sonu Mehta/HT FILE PHOTO) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice K Vinod Chandran made the observation during its hearing on a suo motu petition to frame guidelines to shield lawyers from investigating agencies summoning them for giving advice to clients facing criminal prosecution. The court asked the country's two top law officers, Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to study the suggestions received from lawyer bodies and propose the possible directions that can be issued. The matter was taken up by the court following two instances where senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal were summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) probing the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja. The ESOPs numbering over 22.7 million were valued at ₹250 crore. Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the ED, asked the court not to lay down any guidelines, reasoning that stray incidents such as these were condemnable but should not become the basis for the courts to establish guidelines. 'individual instances should not be sufficient to change the legal framework. As lawyers, we want to be protected. But not everyone may be discharging their duty credibly. There may be a possibility of summoning them within the framework of the law. But any future judicial legislation in this regard will make the task of investigating agencies counter-productive,' Mehta said. The bench said, 'We cannot ignore the recent instances. An eminent lawyer had been issued summons. We have made it clear that there is no protection for any crime. If somebody is assisting the client in destroying evidence, certainly they can be accused of destruction of evidence. But can that be done for giving advice?' The two lawyers' bodies of the Supreme Court - Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) submitted their suggestions to the court. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who is also SCBA president, submitted that in cases where the investigation agency has direct evidence against a lawyer, the same can be considered by the magistrate. If the magistrate feels that the evidence is admissible, summons can be issued, Singh said. SCBA secretary Pragya Baghel, who submitted the association's submissions, traced the protection afforded under the law to lawyers that protects privileged communication between the lawyer and client under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that replaced the Indian Evidence Act. Similar protection is also available under the Companies Act. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, assisting the court, pointed out that the guidelines should also address the issue of receiving fees for the legal opinion tendered to a firm or person facing criminal prosecution. Attorney General R Venkatramani, assisting the court in the suo motu proceedings, assured the court that he will examine all suggestions and report back with his observations. The court asked both AG and SG to examine the suggestions and revert on the next date of hearing on August 12, when the bench will consider passing further directions. SCAORA, which had described the ED summons to the two senior lawyers as a 'chilling signal to the legal community', told the court that the unwarranted summons to advocates to disclose information concerning clients involved in criminal proceedings undermines the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship and poses a serious threat to the integrity of India's criminal justice system. Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, who represented SCAORA, pointed out a recent instance from Kolkata where the laptop of a lawyer practising before the Calcutta high court was seized. 'On the laptop, there is not just information about one client but all his clients. It is the lifeline of the lawyer's practice,' Nadkarni said, expressing concern over the search and seizure of lawyers conducted by investigating agencies that need judicial oversight. The submissions handed over by the SCAORA office bearers pointed out that the Bar Council of India rules explicitly prohibit advocates from committing, directly or indirectly, any breach of the obligations to their client, breach of which amounts to professional misconduct. 'The duty to maintain confidentiality is not merely statutory but is deeply embedded in the ethical and professional framework governing advocates in India. Disclosing privileged communication without client consent may constitute professional misconduct and attract disciplinary consequences,' SCAORA said.
