Latest news with #Constitutio
RTÉ News
08-07-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
Courts cannot regulate Cabinet meetings
The Attorney General has said the courts cannot regulate who can attend Cabinet meetings and any intervention would be an unprecedented intrusion into that branch of Government. Senior Counsel Rossa Fanning was making submissions for a second day in a High Court challenge by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly to the attendance of so called super junior ministers at cabinet meetings. Mr Daly has argued that the appointment of ministers of state with rights to attend Cabinet is unconstitutional. Three judges of the High Court began hearing the challenge taken by Mr Daly yesterday. The case is expected to finish tomorrow. A similar action by TD Paul Murphy, who is seeking an injunction stopping the junior ministers from attending Cabinet, will begin tomorrow. It will also be heard by the three judge divisional court, which is convened to hear matters of constitutional importance. Continuing his submissions today, Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's case could only be characterised as a political challenge to the integrity of the Government. He said it would be an extraordinary incursion in the autonomy and independence of of the executive branch for the court to regulate who attended government meetings in the absence of clear stipulation in the Constitution. He said the Government ought to have a significant margin of appreciation in how it conducts its business, other than where the constitution regulates it, and it was not for the court to find constitutional regulation where it was not contained in the text. He also said the case by Mr Daly was taken with a "curious mix of indolence and haste" referring to a letter from Mr Daly in July 2020 questioning the same points made in the current case. He said at that stage Mr Daly "did absolutely nothing" but five years later pursued it "with enormous haste". He said there was "no way to characterise these proceedings other than a political challenge to integrity of the government at the very outset of its existence ". Mr Fanning said Mr Daly was an opposition TD and his motivation for taking the case did not sit easily with the fact that a Sinn Féin junior minister attends meetings of the NI executive. Earlier, Mr Fanning said there was a danger of exaggeration in the case taken and it was not some sort of apocalyptic level of exponential growth in the size of government meetings which had risen by three. He said there were examples of officials attending government meetings at the discretion of the Taoiseach and these things were best left to that discretion and not second guessed by the court as Mr Daly's side was asking it to do. Incorrect interpretation of the Constitution Yesterday, Senior Counsel Feicin McDonagh said the State argued that other people apart from the fifteen presidentially appointed ministers could attend meetings, to give advice, at the invitation of the Taoiseach. He said if that was correct any number of individuals including non-politicians could attend and said this interpretation of the Constitution was not correct. Today, Mr Fanning said the court ought not to concern itself with hypotheticals and could not decide the case on hypotheticals. He said there was a suggestion by Mr Daly's side that "it would be awful if someone not involved in politics could be involved in policy formation. He said anyone suggesting government could form policy on complex areas such as disability issues without speaking to the HSE was not living in the real world. In response Senior Counsel Eileen Barrington said they key to the case was the meaning of Article 28 of the Constitution which provides for 15 ministers. "If the Taoiseach can invite anyone in to attend and take part, to participate in the debate and become involved in consensus it must be clearly wrong because only 15 are envisaged in the Constitution and it cannot be correct that any number of others unidentified by the constitution can come in and be involved in decision making," she said. Ms Barrington said this was not the same as officials being invited in for a specific purpose to answer questions. She said article 28 did not permit a constitutional "free for all outside it". She said the super junior ministers were acting in a "parallel cabinet and are acting as de facto government ministers when they are involved in decision making". Quoting the musical Hamilton, she said the super junior ministers were "in the room where it happened." She added: "And what is wrong with having people in the room where it happened? Well the problem is that they get to see and participate how the sausage is made they are involved in the sausage making ."
The Hindu
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
How the judiciary maintains accountability
The recent comments by the Vice-President of India on the role of judges has caused much anxiety and is a matter of serious concern that needs to be analysed properly. It is a well-known fact that with power comes responsibility. The position of the Vice-President is second in the order of precedence in India and therefore, anybody holding such a post needs to be extremely cautious before speaking, as his views might send wrong signals to the people. The current Vice-President, Jagdeep Dhankhar, in the context of the Supreme Court setting deadlines for Presidents and Governors to clear Bills approved by the Union/State legislatures, has stated that judges are working as a 'super parliament'; that judges cannot give directions to the President; and that judges are not accountable because the law of the land does not apply to them. Dissecting the claims The term 'super parliament' does not have any significance as Parliament is the supreme body constituted by the free will of the people reflecting the icon of popular sovereignty. No agency including the judiciary can go beyond it. It is to be noted that in order to prevent any arbitrary exercise of power by an independent judiciary, the framers of the Constitution had placed all judicial powers in the Constitution itself. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar versus Union of India (1997) in which the Court held that although all judicial powers are vested in the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary is fully secured because of the principle of separation of powers. If at any time judges try to exercise their powers arbitrarily, crossing the boundaries of the separation of powers, it shall be a gross violation of Article 50 and the government which holds majority in Parliament may initiate a process for a removal of the judge concerned. On the second issue, that the judiciary cannot give directions to the President, a perusal of his position in India needs to be explained. The President is the head of the State (it is clear when Article 52 is read with Article 1). Hence, he or she is elected according to the provisions contained in Articles 54 and 55 establishing India as a Republic. The President is the head of the Executive, the head of the armed forces and also the head of Parliament under Articles 53(1), 53(2) and 79 respectively. Therefore, he is vested with powers according to his position. Giving assent to the Bills is the power of the President which is well within the limits of popular sovereignty. The President cannot and shall not go beyond this doctrine of popular sovereignty. In more simpler words, if the assent is delayed inordinately, it would undermine the people's power which in itself would be undemocratic. Hence, the judiciary setting a time frame for giving assent to Bills is consistent with the requirements of popular sovereignty. It in no way undermines the dignity of the head of the State. Since the people of India abide by the Constitution and believe in its supremacy, all authorities including the President and Governor shall abide by the provisions of the Constitution. On accountability The statement given by the Vice-President that the law of the land does not apply to judges is not at all rational because he himself, as the second highest constitutional authority, questions the rule of law in India. The rule of law flows from the doctrine of the supremacy of the Constitution; questioning its efficacy and limitations would undermine the Constitutional mandate. As mentioned above, all judicial powers have been vested in the Constitution itself, and judges are bound to work within that constitutional ambit. Once any of them go beyond it, he may be removed on the grounds of proved misbehaviour, which would include violation of the Constitution. Moreover, Parliament is empowered to set aside a decision of the Court, if required, by making a new law. This provision also signifies the people's power and popular sovereignty. Last but not the least, the Constitution of India has given powers to the judiciary to review the actions of the State and its instrumentalities for the purpose of establishing the rule of law to protect the rights of the people. The exercise of the inherent power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice under Article 142 is worth mentioning. When there is no express constitutional provision or parliamentary law on a particular subject or issue at hand, the Supreme Court has been vested with the power to become the custodian and sole interpreter of the Constitution. Conclusively, whenever the country faces large-scale turbulence in almost all sectors, constitutional authorities and citizens both need to look at the events with a liberal mindset and should avoid doing or speaking anything which might ultimately prove detrimental to democratic and constitutional sentiments. C.B.P. Srivastava is President, Centre for Applied Research in Governance, Delhi.
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court slows Trump's mass deportations, but doesn't stop them
The Supreme Court this week put an important check on President Trump's power to arrest and quickly deport people who are alleged to be members of a foreign crime gang. Those who face deportation "are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal" before a federal judge, the court said. They must be given "a reasonable time ... that will allow them" to make their case on why they should be spared from deportation, the justices said. "That means that the government cannot usher any detainees onto planes in a shroud of secrecy," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote Monday. She was referring to March 15, when three planeloads of detained men were flown from Texas to a maximum security prison in El Salvador. Many of their family members said the men had no criminal records, and they had no warning they were being sent away. The court this week did not decide on President Trump's broad claims of a wartime power to deport "alien enemies." It also left unresolved most questions about what happens next, including the possibility that the administration will not comply with a judge's order. But the justices agreed that all those facing deportation have a right to a hearing. It's a decision likely to slow the pace of removals, but not to stop them. It was just a month ago when the president, with no public notice, had signed a proclamation that Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan crime gang, is a "foreign terrorist organization" that has invaded the United States. Its members "shall be immediately apprehended and detained until removed from the United States," he said. The first two planes carried Venezuelans who were alleged to be members of the crime gang. The third plane included Salvadorans who were alleged to be members of MS-13, another crime gang. They included Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who denied he had been a gang member. Six years ago, an immigration judge said he could not be sent to El Salvador because he could face persecution from gangs there. The speedy mass deportation came to light that Saturday afternoon because ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt filed a lawsuit in Washington on behalf of five imprisoned men who said they were wrongly labeled as gang members. Read more: Supreme Court faces Guantanamo test again: Does president's power have limits? His suit also questioned Trump's assertion that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gave him war powers to arrest and deport "hostile" aliens. A few days later, Abrego Garcia's wife sued, seeking the return of her wrongly deported husband. In response, Trump administration lawyers said the judges had no authority to second guess or question the president's power to protect the nation from dangerous foreign gang members. After losing in the lower courts, the administration's lawyers filed fast-track appeals with Chief Justice John G. Roberts and the Supreme Court. And this week, the court handed down a pair of unsigned orders that had a common theme shared by all nine justices: that the Constitution gives all persons, including noncitizens, a right to due process of law. That means they cannot be arrested and deported by the government without an opportunity to appeal to a judge. On Thursday, the court agreed with a judge from Maryland whose "order properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." That would allow him a hearing before a judge to argue why he should not be deported. In recent weeks, Roberts has signaled he wants to avoid broad rulings in response to fast-track appeals. He is also fond of split-the-middle decisions that leave many to question who won and who lost. But his focus on due process of law and the right to a habeas corpus hearing had several advantages. Judges, both liberal and conservative, agree on the importance of giving a fair hearing to someone who is the fighting the government. Twenty years ago, the court agreed that the "war on terror" prisoners held at Guantanamo had a habeas corpus right to challenge their detention. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, a former Bush White House attorney, wrote Monday the Guantanamo precedent calls for invoking the right to habeas corpus for the detained Venezuelans. Such a ruling puts down a marker that can be a check on the Trump administration's claim that the president alone had the power to decide who is arrested and deported. It also will slow the pace of deportations. Hundreds of prisoners were deported on March 15 only because none of them were given a legal right to challenge their removal. Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union called Monday's order "an important victory. The critical point of this ruling is the Supreme Court must be given due process to challenge their removal." But as he and others noted, the court decided relatively little this week and left many questions unanswered. It is not clear how or whether Trump and his administration's lawyers will comply. Read more: 'Extremely troubling' that U.S. can't provide details on mistakenly deported man, judge says The administration conceded Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported because of its "administrative error," but it has insisted that it had no duty to seek his return. In response to Thursday's order, the Justice Department restated its view that no judges may interfere. "As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the President to conduct foreign affairs. By directly noting the deference owed to the Executive Branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the President's authority to conduct foreign policy," the department said. On Friday morning, the Justice Department said it could not meet the judge's deadline to provide an immediate update on the whereabouts of Abrego Garcia. Because of all the uncertainty, Georgetown law professor David Cole said it's not clear whether this week's orders will prove significant. "I think it's too early to tell," he said because the court did not rule directly on the president's power over deportations. It's also not clear whether judges can or will block many deportations. Judges in Texas and New York "have now ruled for individuals subject to [Monday's] order, so the issue will get back up to the Court" soon, he said. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
