Centre in SC opposes Kerala's move to withdraw plea against Governor over bill assent delay
Senior advocate and former Attorney General (AG) of India, K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought to withdraw the plea from the top court by saying that the issue had become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case on April 8.
This was vehemently opposed by the Centre through its top law officer, the AG of India, R. Venkataramani, and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, as they urged the court to await the Apex Court's decision on the reference of the President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills.
"Kerala government's petition could also be referred to be tagged along with the presidential reference," Mehta argued before the apex court.
Venugopal continued to plead before the top court, questioning how his plea could be opposed. Finding no rationale in the Centre's arguments, he submitted, 'Why my lords are hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition?'
The former top law officer said that the issues raised in this case will be further dealt with by the Supreme Court when hearing the 14 questions raised in the Presidential Reference on the assent of state bills by a Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Marriages sacrosanct in Hinduism, but strained by trivial disputes, says HC quashing dowry case
1 2 3 4 5 6 Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court observed that Hindu marriages, regarded as spiritual unions, are increasingly under threat from trivial disputes and prolonged litigation. While quashing a dowry harassment case filed in December 2023 against a Nagpur man and his family, the court noted such discord often causes irreversible damage to families and must be resolved with dignity, where reconciliation is not possible. The division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar passed the order on July 8 in response to a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered at Beltarodi police station under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 377 (unnatural offences) of IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act — all non-compoundable offences. The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR, as the couple informed they had obtained a mutual divorce and settled their differences. "Marital discord has nowadays become a menace in society due to various factors," the bench observed. "Small issues between two individuals are spoiling lives, and marriages, which are sacrosanct in Hinduism." Noting that marriage is more than a social contract, the judges said, "It is a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, nowadays, these sacred marriages receive setbacks in such circumstances. The distress, disharmony, and lack of adjustment among individuals lead to conflict." The court pointed to misuse of matrimonial laws, saying that legislation like the Domestic Violence Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and Special Marriage Act, though well-intentioned, is being misapplied. "This results in multiplicity of litigation, mental and physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss, and irreversible harm to children and other family members," the bench noted. It criticised the tendency of naming multiple family members of the husband in such cases, calling it a growing trend that demands a different judicial perspective. "If parties can settle their disputes amicably and live peacefully, it is the duty of courts to encourage such action," the judges said. Referring to Supreme Court's State of Maharashtra versus Chandrabhan case, the bench reiterated the right to life under Article 21 of Constitution is not limited to mere survival. "In matrimonial disputes, if reunion is not possible, it should be put to an end as early as possible. Otherwise, lives of individuals involved will be ruined, which would be violative of Article 21," the order stated. Emphasising the importance of peaceful closure, the court held that continuing criminal proceedings in such settled cases serves no public interest. "The court should support a respectful settlement to terminate litigation between the parties while protecting their life and liberty," it concluded.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
In TDP letter to CEC on Special Intensive Revision, praise, suggestions, and echoes of Oppn's concerns
While recognising the SIR as 'a valuable opportunity to ensure that the electoral rolls are updated in a fair, inclusive, and transparent manner,' the TDP stated that 'to ensure voter confidence and administrative preparedness, the SIR process should be conducted with sufficient lead time, ideally not within six months of any major election'. In a four-page submission to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in New Delhi Tuesday, the Chandrababu Naidu-led party has red-flagged some contentious matters like the timing and verification linked to citizenship. Hyderabad/New Delhi: Amid the Opposition bloc's objections to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), a key NDA partner, has highlighted several considerations for the Election Commission (EC) in conducting the exercise. Many of these suggestions echo the Opposition's concerns. Opposition parties are questioning the exercise, taken up 3-4 months before the Bihar polls. The timing of the ECI's exercise in Bihar is a concern which the Supreme Court also highlighted while hearing petitions opposing the SIR process. The SC in its order listed three questions the petitioners raised, one of them being: 'The timing for undertaking the present exercise including the time line given for preparation of the Draft Electoral Rolls, objections, etc, and the final publication of Electoral Roll, considering the fact that Bihar State Assembly elections are due in November, 2025, for which notifications will come weeks in advance'. Seeking clarity on SIR purpose, scope, the TDP said that it should be 'limited to electoral roll correction and inclusion'. 'It should be explicitly communicated that the exercise is not related to citizenship verification, and any field instructions must reflect this distinction,' it added. In its order directing the SIR in Bihar last month, the ECI had cited Article 326 of the Constitution, which says that elections to the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. This, the provision says, means 'every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age…shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election'. However, during the hearing on petitions challenging the Bihar electoral roll revision, lawyers appearing for the petitioners had taken objection to the ECI determining 'citizenship' through the revision exercise. For instance, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RJD MP Prof Manoj Kumar Jha, asserted that it is only the Government of India that can contest a person's citizenship and not a 'small officer of the EC'. The TDP said voters already enrolled in the most recent certified electoral roll should not be required to re-establish their eligibility unless specific and verifiable reasons are recorded. 'In line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer prior inclusion creates a presumption of validity, and any deletion must be preceded by a valid inquiry,' the party said in its submission adding that 'the burden of proof lies with the ERO or objector, not the voter, especially when the name exists in the official roll.' The petitioners challenging the revision in Bihar have relied on a 1995 judgment the TDP also cited. In this verdict, the Supreme Court had taken objection to the generalised removal of individuals who were voters in past elections, and them being asked to prove their eligibility to find their place back in the rolls. It had asserted that in cases in which persons were voters in previous elections, it would be presumed that before entering their names, the concerned officer must have gone through the procedural requirements under the statute. The party requested the commission to issue 'clear procedural guidance stating that deletion of any voter must be based on a reasoned order, proper notice, and an opportunity to respond.' 'Where voters are unable to submit documents at the time of visit, stage-wise verification should be permitted, instead of immediate exclusion.' 'Nothing to do with SIR in Bihar' A delegation of TDP leaders including AP unit chief Palla Srinivasa Rao, MPs Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu, Byreddy Shabari, Prasada Rao, and party leader Jyothsna Tirunagari submitted the suggestions to ECI, on a day party supremo is also in New Delhi. 'Our submissions have nothing to do with the SIR in Bihar. It is part of our party's larger support for reforms in the election processes, be it eradication of duplicate cards or other matters. We want technology-enabled electoral roll management.,' Tirunagari told ThePrint. Though Andhra Pradesh is not due for assembly elections until 2029, the ruling party requested the ECI to start the process in the state as early as possible. The ECI, in its order announcing the Bihar revision had also said that it has decided to begin such a revision in the entire country for 'discharge of its constitutional mandate to protect the integrity of the electoral rolls', but was starting the exercise in Bihar since it will go to polls this year. Since Andhra Pradesh has high levels of seasonal migration, particularly from rural and coastal regions, SIR should deploy mobile BLO units and accept temporary address declarations to prevent exclusion of such workers and displaced families, TDP said in the letter. (Edited by Gitanjali Das) Also Read: No legal, valid 'citizenship' document that's issued—how it puts big question mark on ECI's Bihar exercise
News18
an hour ago
- News18
2003 Bengaluru Techie Murder: SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Law Student Fiancée & Others, But...
Last Updated: The court let the convicts seek pardon from the Karnataka governor under Article 161, citing the crime as a result of youthful misjudgment rather than inherent criminality The Supreme Court on July 14 upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a then BA-LLB student, her boyfriend, and two others for the murder of her fiancé in 2003. However, while affirming their culpability, the court granted them liberty to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, noting the psychological and circumstantial complexities that surrounded the crime. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Kum Shubha alias Shubhashankar and co-accused Arun Verma, Dinesh alias Dinakaran, and Venkatesh, challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision upholding their conviction and sentence for the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer employed with Intel, Bengaluru. The murder, which occurred just two days after the victim's engagement to Shubha, was, in the court's words, not the result of innate criminality but a 'dangerous adventure born out of emotional rebellion and wild romanticism". The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, including continuous call records between Shubha and the co-accused, pointing to a clear conspiracy and 'meeting of minds". The court also acknowledged the mental state of the girl, observing that 'the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind." Ita remarked that this inner conflict, paired with emotional entanglements, culminated in the tragic loss of an innocent life and simultaneously derailed the lives of four young individuals. The bench, however, made it clear that empathy could not override culpability. 'We cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life," the court said, while also noting that years had passed since the crime and that the appellants were no longer the same individuals they were at the time of the offence. Two of the four convicts were teenagers at the time of the incident, while Shubha had just crossed that threshold. The fourth accused, a 28-year-old man, was recently married and had a child when the appeal was decided. The court acknowledged their middle-aged status today, observing that 'adrenaline-pumped decisions of youth must sometimes be revisited through the lens of reform, not just retribution". Liberty to Seek Pardon While dismissing the appeal and affirming the life sentence, the court invoked Article 161 of the Constitution, allowing the appellants to file petitions for gubernatorial pardon before the governor of Karnataka. The bench expressed hope that the constitutional authority would take into account the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the case. 'We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the judgment stated. The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file the pardon plea and ordered that they shall not be arrested and that their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor's decision is made. What Happened? According to the prosecution, Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her college friend and romantic partner, Arun Verma. Moved by her distress, Verma sought help from his cousin Dinesh, who, in turn, brought in his teenage friend Venkatesh to execute the plan. The engagement took place on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on December 3, Shubha invited Girish to dinner. On their return, they stopped at the 'Air View Point" along the Airport Ring Road to watch planes land, a popular hangout spot in Bengaluru. It was there that Girish was attacked with a steel rod by an 'unknown assailant" and left with critical head injuries. He succumbed to the wounds the following day in the hospital. While initially appearing as a random act of violence, investigations soon revealed a web of mobile communication between the accused. The prosecution's case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, supported by call detail records (CDR), which placed the accused in constant contact before, during, and after the murder. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302 (murder), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appeals landed before the Supreme Court. In perhaps the most humanising portion of the verdict, the SC refrained from using the harsh language usually associated with murder convictions. It instead focused on the circumstances of compulsion, familial pressure, and emotional immaturity, concluding that while the crime cannot be forgiven, the convicts deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation. 'This Court seeks to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants," the judgment said, striking a rare balance between justice for the deceased and reformative justice for the offenders. Under Article 161, a governor has constitutional power to pardon, remit, or suspend a sentence. The Supreme Court's order does not mandate such relief but merely permits the convicts to make the request. The final decision lies with the governor of Karnataka, who must weigh the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the passage of time, before granting any clemency. Until then, the sentence imposed on the convicts remains suspended, and they won't be taken into custody. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
