LawLoveLegal

The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating a significant constitutional question: whether it can prescribe fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills, despite the Constitution’s explicit language requiring them to act only “as soon as possible.” Background: The Presidential Reference under Article 143 The issue stems from an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court that imposed deadlines — three months for the President to decide on bills and one month for governors to act on re-enacted bills. The judgment sparked intense debate, leading to a Presidential Reference under Article 143 . The reference, sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May, places 14 questions before the Court, including whether judicially crafting procedural rules where the Constitution is silent amounts to rewriting constitutional provisions . The matter is being heard by a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai , with Justic...

📜 Background: Supreme Court’s April 8 Verdict On April 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case involving the Tamil Nadu Government vs the Governor , setting specific deadlines for the Governor and President to decide on pending state legislation . This decision was perceived as a move to curb executive delay in state lawmaking processes. However, this directive faced a constitutional rebuttal from President Droupadi Murmu , who has now formally questioned the legal validity of imposing such deadlines through judicial orders. 🏛️ President Murmu's Constitutional Standpoint In her response, President Murmu asserted that neither Article 200 nor Article 201 of the Constitution prescribes any timelines for the Governor or the President to act upon state Bills. Article 200: Role of the Governor This provision allows the Governor to: Grant assent to a Bill, Withhold assent, Return the Bill to the state legislature (if it is no...

  Context and Background The Supreme Court of India has granted interim bail to Vikas Yadav , a convict in the high-profile Nitish Katara murder case , until May 8, 2025 , due to the deteriorating health of his mother. Vikas Yadav, who is currently serving a 25-year sentence without remission , has been incarcerated for his role in the 2002 murder of Katara, which was deemed an honour killing. Vikas Yadav is the son of former UP politician DP Yadav , and was convicted along with his cousin Vishal Yadav for the abduction and brutal killing of Nitish Katara , a business executive who was reportedly in a romantic relationship with Bharti Yadav , Vikas's sister. Supreme Court's Directions and Conditions for Bail The bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka issued the interim bail considering humanitarian grounds, stating that the court was “only considering the case in the context of the health condition of the convict’s mother.” The conditions for interim bail are as follows: ...

SC Rules: Only States Can Tax Lotteries – No Service Tax by Centre Introduction In a significant verdict , the Supreme Court of India ruled that lottery distributors are not liable to pay service tax to the Central Government . The apex court upheld the Sikkim High Court's 2012 decision , stating that only state governments have the power to impose taxes on lotteries under Entry 62, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. This ruling brings clarity to the taxation of lotteries , reinforcing the exclusive authority of states over gambling-related activities. The Supreme Court's Judgment Key Observations by the Bench 🔹 The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna & N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the Centre’s appeal, citing that the Finance Act amendments of 2012, 2015, and 2016 , which sought to levy service tax on lottery distributors, were ineffective . 🔹 The SC upheld that the business of lotteries operates on a Principal-to-Principal basis , meani...

SC Dismisses Petitions to Review Article 370 Verdict The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking a review of its judgment that upheld the Union government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which conferred special status on Jammu and Kashmir. The five-judge Constitution bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and AS Bopanna, dismissed the review petitions in chamber, noting no apparent error in the original verdict delivered on December 11, 2022. Supreme Court's Decision on Review Petitions On May 1, the Supreme Court stated, "Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. There is no case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed." This ruling reaffirmed the court's earlier decision that upheld the abrogation of Article 370, labeling it a "tempor...

Supreme Court Issues Notice to Centre on Marital Rape Exception Challenge in New Criminal Law The Supreme Court of India on Friday issued a notice to the Centre regarding a plea challenging the retention of the marital rape exception in the new criminal law, Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. This significant move came as a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud decided to tag the matter with an existing petition challenging the same provision under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), scheduling further hearings for July. Petition by All India Democratic Women's Association The plea challenging the marital rape exception was filed by the All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA), with Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy representing the petitioner. The AIDWA's petition is part of a broader movement seeking the removal of legal protections that currently exempt husbands from rape charges within marriage. Background of the Issue Several petitions have previously been filed in th...

Delhi Excise Policy Case: ED Opposes Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Against Arrest, Cites Evidence Enforcement Directorate's Affidavit: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed an affidavit opposing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea against his arrest. Alleging non-cooperation, the agency stated that Kejriwal avoided interrogation despite multiple summons, further exacerbating the necessity of his arrest. The ED underscored instances where Kejriwal allegedly failed to appear before the investigating officer despite being summoned nine times. Kejriwal's Conduct and Evidence: In its affidavit, the ED contends that Kejriwal's conduct significantly contributed to the grounds for his arrest, alongside the material evidence gathered during the investigation. Additionally, the agency highlighted instances where crucial evidence, including data from approximately 170 mobile phones, was allegedly destroyed by individuals involved in the scam. Recovery of Key Evidence: De...