Latest news with #Constitutionally
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Former CJI DY Chandrachud supports ‘one nation, one election', says it doesn't violate the Constitution
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has supported the constitutional validity of the 'one nation, one election' ( ONOP ) proposal ahead of his scheduled appearance before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on Friday. He is expected to appear along with another former CJI, JS Khehar, a TOI report stated. As per the TOI report, the former CJI, in his written opinion, has said that the Constitution does not mandate separate timings for Lok Sabha and state assembly elections. 'The Constitution never mandated holding national and state elections separately,' Chandrachud stated in his submission to the JPC, which is headed by BJP MP PP Chaudhary. The ONOP proposal aims to synchronise elections for Parliament and state assemblies. It has faced criticism from opposition parties, who argue it violates the Constitution's basic structure. Chandrachud responded to this, saying staggered elections are not part of the original Constitution and do not form an unchangeable feature. Concerns over Election Commission's powers While supporting the idea, Chandrachud flagged concerns over the extensive powers proposed for the Election Commission of India (ECI) under the ONOP bill. He noted that such powers could allow the ECI to extend or shorten the tenure of a state assembly, which would go beyond the Constitutionally set five-year term. 'Such unbounded authority could enable the poll body to curtail or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond the constitutionally mandated five years, under the pretext that simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha are not feasible. The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power,' he said. Live Events This concern was also raised earlier by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi. Chandrachud served as India's 50th Chief Justice from November 2022 to 2024. Voter rights and representation Chandrachud said that holding simultaneous elections would not affect the voters' rights. He argued that the bill provides for continued representation of electors through elected members in both Parliament and legislative assemblies. 'Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive and can be easily manipulated. The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution's basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature,' he said. Smaller parties may be marginalised Chandrachud also pointed out that simultaneous elections could benefit national parties over smaller or regional ones. He said this concern must be addressed through legislative policy. He highlighted that while the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 set spending limits for candidates, there is no limit on what political parties themselves can spend. This gap, he noted, gives an advantage to parties with higher financial resources. Midterm polls and government stability The bill proposes that any House elected through midterm polls will serve only the remainder of the original five-year term. Chandrachud said this could weaken a government's ability to carry out significant policy actions if it is elected for a short term. He said the Model Code of Conduct would kick in about six months before the next scheduled election, limiting government actions during that time. Several JPC members have also raised similar concerns. Former CJIs UU Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have earlier presented their views before the JPC. Lalit has also supported the constitutional validity of the ONOP proposal.
The Hindu
26-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Governor-government row over ‘Bharat Mata' assumes a combative dimension
The stand-off between the Kerala Government and Raj Bhavan over the contentious use of the 'Bharat Mata' motif at functions attended by Governor Rajendra Arlekar showed scarce signs of easing on Thursday. Furthermore, it appeared to assume a combative dimension with Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan notifying Raj Bhavan that only Constitutionally mandated national symbols were permissible at functions attended by the Governor. The arguably tense entanglement also seemed to escalate, with the Governor's office reportedly lodging a formal objection to General Education Minister V Sivankutty's 'protocol-breaching boycott' of an official event attended by Mr. Arlerkar, citing the placement of the 'Bharat Mata' motif at the venue. Officials said Raj Bhavan had also taken strong exception to the bedlam that broke out on Kerala University Senate Hall premises on Wednesday, where Students Federation of India (SFI) and Kerala Students Union (KSU) activists protested Mr. Arlerkar's attendance at a function organised by a private trust to observe the 50th anniversary of the Emergency. Again, the positioning of a Bharat Mata picture, bearing a saffron flag and near a lion, on the stage emerged as the bone of contention. Officials said the Raj Bhavan communique appeared not to be a riposte to Mr. Vijayan's letter. They said the letter appeared to stand separate of the issue raised by Mr. Vijayan. The government had objected to Raj Bhavan's use of the Bharat Mata motif at official functions on the premise that it was a brazenly non-secular depiction of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's (RSS) notion of a Hindu Rashtra. The Cabinet concluded that the Constitutionally mandated protocol set in stone forbids the use of such 'political and religious' iconography in State functions. The Opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) found itself in rare agreement with the government. It accused Raj Bhavan of 'superseding' national symbols, such as the national flag and the national anthem, by using images and rituals with political and religious overtones and objected to the 'unauthorised' practice of paying obeisance to the 'RSS's Bharat Mata portrait' at the Governor's public functions. Notably, All India Congress Committee General Secretary (Organisation), K.C. Venugopal, MP, petitioned the President of India against the position of the Kerala Raj Bhavan. Meanwhile, Raj Bhavan dug its heels in on its stated position that Bharat Mata was emblematic of a unified India and on par with other national symbols.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
4 people charged in Loveland park incident involving council member Erin Black
Four people were issued a summons for harassment, but not Loveland City Council member Erin Black, after a March park altercation that has led to an effort to recall her. The Larimer County Sheriff's Office said in a news release May 30 it concluded its investigation into the case, and the Eighth Judicial District Attorney's Office issued summonses for class 1 or class 2 misdemeanor harassment. But Black is not among the people who will be facing criminal charges. The charges stem from a March 29 incident in Loveland's Dwayne Webster Park that involved resident Dillon Kaiser, Black and others who were at the park with her. A video recording publicly posted March 30 by Kaiser showed the two sides arguing with each other for about 10 minutes. In the video, taken by Kaiser, the parties can be seen taunting each other, calling each other names and daring each other to make physical contact. Black can be seen yelling at Kaiser, carrying an umbrella and gesturing toward him with it while standing close to him. After the incident, Loveland City Council members formally asked Black to resign, calling her behavior unacceptable. They said her actions lacked decorum that an elected official should have, undermined public trust and damaged the integrity of the council. She has not resigned, and now a recall effort is underway. The Loveland Police Department asked the sheriff's office to take over the criminal investigation after learning a Loveland council member was involved. The District Attorney's Office, in a social media post, explained why Black was not charged. In a Facebook post, the DA's office said it had multiple video angles of the incident, including some that were not made public. The complete video evidence demonstrated there was no contact between Black and Kaiser, the post said, and "it was reviewed by multiple attorneys who came to the same conclusion." While the allegation of physical contact involving Black did not lead to charges, another allegation did because it was corroborated by video evidence and on-scene statements, the post said. "In Colorado, a criminal charge of harassment must fall into a narrow set of parameters," the post said. In the case of the four people charged, there was actual physical contact and repeated taunts that specifically tried to solicit a physical confrontation or violence, the DA's office says. "Other communications, even if aggressive or confrontational, that don't meet the narrow statutory exceptions, are Constitutionally protected free speech," the post says. This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Loveland council member Erin Black isn't charged in park incident
The Hindu
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
President Murmu seeks clarification from Supreme Court on its judgment imposing time frame to give assent to bills
President Droupadi Murmu has sent a Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for its opinion on, among other questions, the 'Constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India'. The Presidential Reference has also asked for the Supreme Court's opinion on whether timelines can be imposed on the President through judicial orders when Bills are reserved by Governors for Presidential assent. The President's Reference said there are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President under Article 201 was justiciable or not. The Reference, dated May 13, has also sought the opinion on the contours a and scope of Article 142 of the Constitution. Questions asked by President What are the Constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 for assent? Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers? Is the exercise of Constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution (immunity given to President and Governors from legal action while in office) an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200? In the absence of any Constitutionally prescribed time limit or manner of exercise of powers by a Governor, can time limits be imposed and manner of exercise of powers be prescribed through judicial orders? Is the exercise of Constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 (dealing with Bills reserved by a Governor for consideration by the President) justiciable? Can judicial orders impose timelines and manner of exercise of powers by the President under Article 201? Is the President required to take advice from the Supreme Court when a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the President's assent? Are decisions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage prior to even the Bill in question becoming a law. Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law? Can the Constitutional powers of the President/Governors be substituted by a judicial order exercising Article 142? Is a law made by the State Legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor? Is it not mandatory for a Supreme Court Bench to examine if a case involved substantial questions of law regarding interpretation of the Constitution and refer the case to a Bench of a minimum five judges under Article 145(3)? Is Article 142 limited matters of procedural law or does it extend to issuing directions 'contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution'? Is there a bar on the Supreme Court from deciding between the Centre and States other than by way of filing an original suit under Article 131? In a reference to the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment of the apex court, the Presidential Reference said the 'concept of deemed assent of the President and the Governor is aline to the Constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribed the power of the President and the Governor'. The apex court judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case had held that assent to Bills would be deemed if no action was taken on them by the President or Governor within the prescribed timeline of three months. The Presidential Reference highlighted that States are resorting to approach the apex court under Article 32, and not Article 131, to raise issues 'which by their very nature are federal issues involving interpretation of the Constitution'. President Murmu has listed a series of 14 questions for the Supreme Court to consider and give an opinion under Article 143.
Engadget
09-05-2025
- Business
- Engadget
Trump plans to shut down the Consumer Product Safety Commission
In the latest blow to what was generally a functional government, President Donald Trump wants to eliminate the independent agency in charge of issuing recalls and protecting US citizens from harmful products. The Office of Management and Budget has suggested the responsibilities of the Consumer Product Safety Commission should be folded into "a nonexistent division within the Department of Health and Human Services," according to a joint letter from lawmakers. And to seemingly start the process, Trump has fired the commission's three Democratic members without cause, The Washington Post reports. Following a meeting with the Department of Government Efficiency, Commissioners Mary Boyle and Richard Trumka Jr. received emails on May 8 informing them they'd been fired. A third commissioner, Alexander Hoehn-Saric wasn't formerly fired, but shared via a statement on May 9 that the Acting Chairman of the commission was "preventing [him] from executing [his] duties." Commissioners in agencies like the CPSC, FCC or the FTC are appointed by the President, approved by the Senate and normally serve out their term in its entirety. Removing a commissioner requires the President to determine that they've neglected their duty or are credibly accused of wrongdoing. To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings. Please click here and view the "Content and social-media partners" setting to do so. That Constitutionally protected standard has not been Trump's concern since he took office. The Democratic members of the FTC say they were illegally fired in a similar fashion back in March, and are now suing the US government. CPSC Commissioner Trumka has announced that he plans to take his case to court, too. The US Supreme Court is considering a case that could determine whether Trump can actually fire members of independent agencies, but until that verdict is reached, we're in limbo. Eliminating the CPSC or at the very least, its Democratic wing, means businesses will receive a lot less scrutiny over the products they sell. Plenty of companies would prefer not to deal with the hassle of recalls and fines. Amazon even proposed in March that the CPSC was too powerful and called the agency "unconstitutionally constructed." Under the Trump administration, those complaints are apparently being heard and acted upon.
