The Centre told the Supreme Court that governors are not indefinitely sitting on bills passed by state legislatures, and that barring a few exceptions, most have acted in a way which the apex court would have perhaps desired. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that a Governor is "not a rubber stamp" and has a duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding a presidential reference on whether fixed timelines can be imposed on governors and the president for acting on bills passed by state legislatures. The court is considering objections to the maintainability of the reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has scheduled hearings starting August 19 for the Presidential Reference concerning constitutional issues related to timelines for handling bills passed by state assemblies. The court has directed the Centre and states to submit written arguments by August 12.
A profile of B Sudershan Reddy, former Supreme Court judge and Opposition's vice presidential candidate, highlighting his career, judgments, and contributions to constitutional law.
BJP-ruled states argued in the Supreme Court that governors and the President have autonomy in assenting to bills passed by state assemblies, asserting that courts cannot mandate assent.
'You know the situation in Yemen now. There is no government there.' 'The rebels are in control. So, there is no diplomatic channel through which we can negotiate.'
The Supreme Court has questioned the practice of Governors withholding assent to bills indefinitely, stating that it renders the constitutional provision of 'as soon as possible' meaningless.
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
The Tamil Nadu government has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential reference concerning the Governor's powers to assent to bills, arguing it is an 'appeal in disguise' to overturn settled law.
The Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu case regarding investigation agencies summoning lawyers and will examine if they can be put to notice. The action follows the Enforcement Directorate summoning senior lawyers, which was condemned by bar associations.
President Droupadi Murmu has exercised powers under Article 143(1) used in rarity to know from the Supreme Court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies.
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a judicial probe into the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were killed.
The Supreme Court dismissed Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report that found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row.
The matter would be heard by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
The Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of an analogy used by the Centre in support of the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, stating that such logic would disqualify a bench of Hindu judges from hearing matters related to Waqf. The CJI questioned the Centre's stance on the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which allows non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and state waqf boards. The Solicitor General defended the provisions, emphasizing that the non-Muslim inclusion is limited and does not impact the Muslim composition of these bodies. However, the CJI asserted that judges shed their religious affiliations while serving on the bench and maintained their secularity in their judicial capacity.
Some of his directives had the Supreme Court judges disclose their assets whereas the row over the discovery of cash from a sitting judge's official residence paved way for inquiry.
The Indian government has defended the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in the Supreme Court, arguing that there cannot be a blanket stay on the law as there is a presumption of its constitutionality. The Centre countered the pleas challenging the law's validity, asserting that the amendments were undertaken after a comprehensive study by a parliamentary panel. The government also highlighted the "reported misuse" of earlier provisions and the increase in waqf land, claiming that over 20 lakh hectares were added after 2013.
The Supreme Court on Monday said the pleas challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act's constitutional validity will now be taken up by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India-designate Justice B R Gavai on May 15 as the incumbent CJI will be demitting office on May 13.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that governors cannot indefinitely delay giving assent to bills passed by state legislatures, setting a timeline of one to three months for their actions. The court said the governor must act "as soon as possible" and that failure to comply with the timeline will make their inaction subject to judicial review. The ruling comes as several opposition-ruled states have accused governors of delaying assent to bills passed by their assemblies.
From demonetisation to sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes to bulldozers, Justice Gavai has been part of several judgments.
Underscoring the 'presumption of constitutionality in favour of law', the Supreme Court on Tuesday said petitioners challenging the waqf law needed a 'strong and glaring' case for interim relief.
The Supreme Court of India began hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, asked both sides to address whether the court should entertain the petitions or relegate them to the high court. The hearing is underway with senior advocate Kapil Sibal arguing for the petitioners. The act, which was passed by Parliament following heated debates, has been challenged by various parties including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind.
A Governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers, the Supreme Court has held.
Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal has criticised Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for questioning the judiciary over the timeline for the president to take decisions, calling it "unconstitutional " and a lowering of the dignity of the chair. Sibal asserted that Dhankhar's remarks are not neutral and amount to an attack on the judiciary by the executive. He also pointed out that the president acts on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, and therefore, the president's power cannot be curtailed. Sibal urged Dhankhar to seek a review of the judiciary's decision or an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court if he has problems with it. He also questioned why Dhankhar only focuses on actions taken during Congress governments and not after 2014.
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its interim orders on three key issues related to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the power to denotify waqf properties, the composition of waqf boards, and the provision regarding government land. The court heard arguments from both the petitioners, who challenged the validity of the amended law, and the Centre, which defended the Act as a secular concept. The petitioners sought interim orders to prevent the implementation of certain provisions while the court considers the legal challenges.
The Centre on Thursday assured the Supreme Court that it will neither denotify Waqf properties, including "Waqf by user", nor make any appointments to the central Waqf council and boards till May 5.
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme court fixed a timeline for Governor to act on bills passed by the state legislature as it pulled up Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi for reserving 10 bills for President's consideration, saying it was against the constitutional provisions.
The Supreme Court of India has overturned an order by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that halted construction activities at Auroville in Chennai. The court emphasized the need for a "golden balance" between the right to development and the right to a clean environment, upholding the principle of sustainable development. The decision comes as a victory for the Auroville Foundation, which had challenged the NGT order, and highlights the ongoing debate about balancing environmental concerns with economic growth in India.
A bench comprising justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on April 8 gave a huge relief to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led Tamil Nadu government and cleared 10 state bills which were stalled and reserved by Governor R N Ravi for President's consideration, and also set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by state assemblies.
Four days after the top court cleared 10 bills, which were stalled and reserved by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi for the president's consideration, and set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies, the judgement running into 415 pages was uploaded on the apex court's website at 10.54 pm on Friday.
The Supreme Court has directed a Maharashtra authority to respond to a man's plea for initiating contempt action against it after his properties were demolished for allegedly raising anti-India slogans during a cricket match. The petitioner, who hails from Sindhudurg district in the state, claims his house and shop were demolished on February 24 following an FIR against him, his wife, and his 14-year-old son for allegedly raising anti-India slogans during the India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match. The plea argues that the demolition violated the Supreme Court's November 13, 2024 verdict on demolition of properties, which barred demolition without a prior showcause notice and 15 days' time for the aggrieved party to respond. The petitioner seeks directions for initiating contempt proceedings against the chief officer and administrator of the Malvan Municipal Council.
The Centre said as a matter of judicial review, the court could declare the provisions to be unconstitutional, however, the relief sought by the petitioner effectively sought to read "life-long" instead of "six years" in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act.
The sequence of events since Pakistan's Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry was suspended on March 9, which sparked a major crisis in the country.
Prime Minister Aziz told reporters that the government had no plans to the withdraw the reference against Chaudhry containing allegations of misconduct and misuse of authority, which the SJC would take up on April 3.
This Women's Day Week, we celebrate the groundbreaking achievements of Justice Anna Chandy, Justice M Fathima Beevi and Justice Leila Seth.
A petition filed by one Shahid Orakzai questioned the "relegation" of a Muslim chief justice and the appointment of a non-Muslim judge to the post.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said the term "administration" with regard to powers of the lieutenant governor cannot be understood as the entire administration of Delhi.
'The BJP lacks a credible mass leader who matches Mamata Banerjee's popularity.' 'Given the division of votes among Opposition parties, the West Bengal government's dole-giving strategy, and the consolidation of the poor, significant sections of scheduled caste groups and Muslim minorities behind the ruling party, it will be difficult to dislodge the Trinamool from power.'
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who has been part of several landmark Supreme Court judgements such as scrapping the electoral bonds scheme and upholding abrogation of Article 370, will be sworn in as the 51st Chief Justice of India on Monday.
As the petition points out, new medical colleges entail adjunct government hospitals, thus making specialised medical care that much more accessible to the vast majority of population that otherwise could not afford high-cost medical care in the private sector, N Sathiya Moorthy points out.
© 2026 Rediff.com - Advertise with us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - Sitemap - Feedback - About us - Terms of use - Grievances