LawLoveLegal

I. Introduction The prolonged standoff between Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and the DMK-led government under Chief Minister M K Stalin has once again come into sharp focus following the Governor’s walkout from the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly . What appears on the surface as a disagreement over speeches and protocol raises deeper constitutional questions about the role of Governors in India’s federal structure , the limits of their discretion , and the authority of elected state governments . II. Background of the Conflict The conflict between the Governor and the state government has not emerged overnight. It has evolved over several years, manifesting through disputes over: The Governor’s Assembly address Delay or refusal to grant assent to Bills Public comments by the Governor on governance issues Alleged interference by the Union government via Raj Bhavans The friction became visibly public when Governor Ravi walked out of the Assembly , refusing to read the full government-ap...

Background of the Controversy The Supreme Court of India has taken cognisance of an escalating institutional confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Trinamool Congress (TMC)-led West Bengal government , arising out of ED searches conducted on January 8 at premises linked to political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) in Kolkata and the residence of its director Pratik Jain . The searches were part of a money laundering investigation connected to alleged illegal coal mining and smuggling in West Bengal , involving suspected proceeds of crime exceeding ₹2,742 crore . Supreme Court Proceedings and Observations A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi admitted two petitions : One filed by the Enforcement Directorate , and Another by three ED officers , seeking a court-monitored CBI investigation into the alleged obstruction faced during the searches. The Court described the situation as “very serious...

The political developments in Kerala have taken a significant constitutional turn as the State government, led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan , decided to legally challenge the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to implement the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The move, endorsed by all major political parties except the BJP, raises questions about the constitutional validity, procedural fairness, and democratic implications of the ECI’s decision. Background of the Dispute At a high-level all-party meeting in Thiruvananthapuram , the Kerala government announced its decision to seek legal recourse against the SIR exercise, citing that the ECI’s move to revise voter rolls based on the 2002 electoral list was “unscientific” and “ill-intentioned.” The Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) stated that with the upcoming local body elections scheduled for late 2025, revising the voter rolls in such a hurried and retrospective manner could disrupt the elec...

The ongoing debate over Jammu & Kashmir’s restoration of statehood has taken a significant turn as Chief Minister Omar Abdullah announced that he is exploring the possibility of becoming a party to the petitions pending before the Supreme Court . The top court is currently hearing multiple pleas seeking the reinstatement of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, which was revoked on August 5, 2019 , following the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh) . Supreme Court Proceedings on Statehood Restoration On October 10, 2025 , the Supreme Court of India granted the Centre four weeks to file its response in the ongoing hearings related to the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. The petitions argue that the prolonged Union Territory status undermines federalism , representative democracy , and constitutional autonomy once guaranteed under Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution. Chief Minister Oma...

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...

The ongoing constitutional debate on the powers of governors and the President regarding pending state bills took a sharp turn as the Union government argued before the Supreme Court that states have no legal right to approach the top court under Article 32 to allege violation of their rights due to delayed or withheld assent. This submission came during the hearing of President Droupadi Murmu’s Article 143 reference in May, which seeks clarity on the April 8 Supreme Court ruling that prescribed timelines for the President and governors to act on pending bills. Key Arguments from the Union Government Appearing before a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai , Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta asserted that: States Cannot Claim Fundamental Rights The Constitution confers fundamental rights on citizens and individuals, not governments. A state is “the State” as defined under Article 12 and is a repository of duties , not a hold...

Plea Filed in Supreme Court for Restoration of  Jammu and Kashmir’s Statehood A fresh plea has been filed in the Supreme Court  of India, urging the Court to issue directions for the immediate restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir . The application, filed by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat (a college teacher) and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik , calls for a time-bound restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, stating that the delay is causing significant harm to both the federal structure of the country and the fundamental rights of its citizens. Background and Key Points of the Plea Union Government’s Assurance The plea argues that despite assurances given by the Solicitor General of India that Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood would be restored, there has been no progress over the last ten months  since the Supreme Court’s decision on the abrogation of Article 370 . The petitioners have filed this application seeking a two-month timeframe  for the restoration of sta...

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Pleas on States' Power to  Levy Tax on Minerals In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed review petitions challenging its earlier judgment, which allowed states to levy taxes on mineral-bearing lands . The judgment also upheld that royalty on extracted minerals is not a tax. The petitions were aimed at revisiting the decision of the nine-judge bench but were rejected by a majority verdict. Background of the Case The core issue in the case revolved around whether state governments have the power to levy taxes on mines and minerals , a matter of critical importance for natural resource management and fiscal federalism . The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in July 2024 that states hold the legislative power to tax mineral rights and that royalty payments made to the government are contractual considerations , not taxes. The decision was appealed by the Central Government , pointing out what it termed as ...