&w=3840&q=100)
SC allows Kerala govt to withdraw pleas against guv over assent to bills
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar passed the order after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought withdrawal of the plea and said the issue had turned infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills.
On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas.
Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law.
The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received.
Kerala sought similar directions in its petition.
In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature.
Khan is currently Governor of Bihar.
The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.
The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared.
Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor.
The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President.
Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued.
The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added.
"The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said.
The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.
The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.
Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The language debate in Maharashtra and a soft sedition
A few weeks ago, a shopkeeper was allegedly attacked in Mumbai by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena workers for not speaking Marathi. Similar attacks have been reported across Maharashtra and other parts of India. In Bengaluru, destruction of Hindi-written signage is quite frequent, and in Tamil Nadu, anti-Hindi campaigns have a long history — they often resurface in response to perceived threats to Tamil. Even in Delhi, there is, at times, a subtle exclusion of those who speak with a southern accent or hail from the Northeast. Instances of regional prejudice feed into the trend of linguistic vigilantism that is increasingly spreading across the nation. These tendencies are not secessionist, but they undermine national integration and constitute a new type of 'soft sedition'. They represent a kind of regional hegemony that lives by cultural bullying, verbal violence and everyday discrimination. The underlying causes of this crisis resurfaced with the implementation of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, especially its three-language equation. NEP aims to develop multilingualism and enhance national integration, but its implementation requires students to be taught three languages, including at least two Indian languages. On paper, it allows states to choose these languages. However, in many parts of non-Hindi India, it was seen as a surreptitious advancement of Hindi and perceived as a threat to local languages. Politicians from all parties and regions play on people's fears. They have started muddying the waters again — overt threats against Hindi speakers and migrants from Northern regions are being justified as a counter to Hindi imposition. Even the national parties are hesitant to address this problem, for fear of alienating their state units. The crisis requires us to look again at the philosophical and constitutional basis of the republic. Article 1 of the Constitution says, 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.' This choice of words reflects a conscious rejection of the idea that states are sovereign, cultural or political entities. Unlike a federation that unites countries through treaties, India is a civilisational polity where states derive their legitimacy from the Union. The 1956 linguistic reorganisation was intended to accommodate diversity through better administration. Language does create a strong sense of identity and belonging in India, but it needs to be framed as a common resource — not the right of any state. It is the means through which we connect, share ideas, and forge relationships. Our linguistic diversity should not be a reason for division, but a means by which we understand and are understood. The Constitution gives every Indian citizen freedom through Articles 14, 19 and 21. Every Indian has the right not only to speak their language but also to work and reside throughout the country. A Bihari living in Bengaluru or a Manipuri living in Mumbai is not an outsider; they are equal citizens of the nation. This is not just a cultural sensitivity issue, but a matter of constitutional morality, which Ambedkar invoked while warning against majoritarian tyranny. Any attempt by political or local actors to create linguistic conformity is a violation of the Constitution. Linguistic violence impacts internal migration, which is essential for India's economy, by making workers fear discrimination in unfamiliar states. Such chauvinism exacerbates mistrust between linguistic groups. This anxiety proliferates into educational contexts, job interviews and housing preferences, shrinking the ambit of what it means to be Indian. Cultural majoritarianism does not simply become political, as Ashis Nandy warned, but alters how people see themselves and their social location. This leads us to refer to the phrase, 'soft sedition'. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has updated how we interpret threats to the nation. BNS's Section 152 acknowledges that threats to the nation-state do not always take the form of rebellion, insurrection, or armed revolt. Language-based exclusion, violence and campaigning carve out zones of exclusion. Such ideological subversion must, therefore, be addressed as a potential national security threat and seen as an assault on 'the unity and integrity of India'. Supporters of regional identities argue that linguistic pride is crucial to India's federal character. They are not wrong. India's strength has always been its ability to bind together many languages, cultures and traditions. But diversity should not be confused with division. Love for one's mother tongue does not condone hostility towards another. The executive must act quickly and decisively. Law enforcement agencies should be directed to identify, monitor, report and prosecute language-based hate crimes under the new BNS provisions. Political parties disseminating linguistic hatred must be held accountable under the law. As the final protector and guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court must also act. The Centre should consider launching a National Linguistic Harmony Mission, preferably in coordination with the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Culture, to monitor interstate animosity, promote mutual respect and create outlets where citizens who speak different languages can interact. The Home Ministry should issue public advisories clarifying that verbal abuse and online troll attacks based on language will be considered a crime under the BNS. In the Republic of India, no one is a second-class citizen. India's strength has never come from forcing sameness, but from embracing difference. From Kalidasa and Rabindranath Tagore to Dharamvir Bharati and Premchand, our greatest voices came from different corners, yet spoke to the same soul. India does not need a lingua franca; it needs a lingua familia, where each language is celebrated without any hierarchy. This is not just a call to protect words or languages. It is a call to protect who we are as a people. If we fail to act now, we risk the very idea of India. Sharma is assistant professor, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi, and Kumar is advocate, Delhi High Court
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
July 28, 1985, Forty Years Ago: Coup in Uganda
Rebel Ugandan soldiers overthrew the five-year-old government of Milton Obote and seized power in a bloodless coup. Radio Uganda said Brig Bazilio Olara Okello toppled President Obote who is believed to have fled to Kenya. The radio broadcast by Second Lieutenant Walter Lacuru gave no further details. 29 MLAs resign Five opposition parties in Haryana have decided to launch a movement against the Rajiv Gandhi-Longowal agreement on Punjab. Twenty nine members of the Haryana State Assembly have handed over their resignations to their leaders to be submitted to the Speaker on August 9, the Quit India Day, after a rally in Rohtak. Gujarat bandh On an incident-free day, the 'Gujarat bandh' call given by the striking government employees, demanding abolition of the caste-based roster system of promotion, evoked a good response in parts of Saurashtra and Baroda, while it had little effect in South Gujarat. A bomb explosion was reported at a place of worship in the Vassana suburb area of the city. No details were immediately available. Assam agitation Assam agitation leaders were not interested in continuing the talks to resolve the foreigners issue at the official level and even threatened fresh agitation if the Centre delayed in arriving at a solution. AASU leaders were reported to have said that there was no need for having another round of talks with the union home secretary, R D Pradhan, which was stated to be held in Shillong. Pradhan had assured the delegation that the Centre was keen in solving the issue and there was no 'uncertainty' over the resumption of the talks. 'We will intimate to him our desire of having talks at the political level', the leaders have said.
NDTV
41 minutes ago
- NDTV
Bihar Voter List Revision Issue In Supreme Court Today: 10 Points
New Delhi: The controversial Special Intensive Revision or SIR of voter lists in Bihar ahead of the assembly election has been challenged in the Supreme Court and the matter would be heard by a two-judge bench today. Here are the top 10 points from this big story: The petitioners have argued that the SIR exercise would lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of voters. Various opposition parties in Bihar have claimed the disenfranchisement will benefit the BJP as the state machinery will target people opposed to the ruling alliance. The Election Commission, which is conducting the exercise, has argued that it is doing its constitutional duty by weeding the voters' list of people who are dead, migrated of registered multiple times. The Commission has also assured that no name will be deleted from the list without a due process and there will be month after the publication of the draft list on August 1 to hear objections and make changes. The petitioners have alleged that much of the disenfranchisement is happening due to lack of proper documents. The Supreme Court had asked the poll body to consider three documents for SIR -- Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Card, and ration card. The court has pointed out that they are foundational records to obtain any of the 11 documents, including residence and caste certificates, listed by the Election Commission for voter verification. The Election Commission has argued that Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Card, and ration card could easily be faked. At a joint press conference with leaders of CPI(ML) Liberation, RJD and CPM, Congress's Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the exercise has become a "citizenship test" and questioned its legality. "This is not a matter of political obstinacy. It is not a matter of institutional arrogance. Please reconsider it," he said. The Election Commission said on Sunday that 22 lakh voters in Bihar have died, 36 lakh people have either permanently shifted or not found, and seven lakh were found to have enrolled at multiple places.
