News summary The news concerns a recent Supreme Court judgment in Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd v Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) &…
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts should refrain from entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 in service recruitment disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Deciding appeals related to teacher recruitment in Karnataka, the Court upheld a Division Bench order directing parties to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). It emphasized that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing this remedy. The Court clarified that provisional select lists do not create vested rights and urged the KSAT to conclude the matter within six months.
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 seeking restoration of a blocked WhatsApp account, holding that there is no fundamental right to use the messaging app. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the maintainability of the plea and suggested users could opt for indigenous alternatives such as Arattai by Zoho. The petitioner, a doctor who relied on WhatsApp professionally, later withdrew the plea, with liberty to pursue civil or other legal remedies, amid wider discussions on digital platform accountability and user rights in India.
The Supreme Court is examining whether Governors can indefinitely delay assent to State Bills, following controversies in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. A Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai stressed that Governors “cannot behave like monarchs” or stall governance. The hearings stem from an April 2025 ruling granting a three-month window for assent, after which Bills gain “deemed assent.” The Centre sought clarity via a Presidential Reference under Article 143. With Articles 200–201 at stake, the Court’s decision will shape Centre-State relations and curb gubernatorial inaction.
The 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2024 proposes Article 82A to enable simultaneous Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Supporters cite cost savings, efficiency, and policy continuity, but the plan raises serious constitutional and federal concerns. Aligning terms could mean cutting short or extending legislative tenures, undermining democratic accountability. Allowing the Election Commission to defer polls without Article 356 weakens federal safeguards. While administrative benefits are real, unchecked deferment powers risk legal challenges and erode neutrality. Lasting reform requires phased implementation, broad consensus, and strict safeguards. Efficiency must not trump democratic principles or citizens’ right to regular elections.
The Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu ended the misuse of “pocket veto” by Governors. It held that Article 200 doesn’t allow indefinite inaction and set clear timelines—one month for assent and three months for reconsideration—strengthening State legislatures’ authority and federal balance. By invoking Article 142 to deem delayed Bills as assented, the Court prevented democratic paralysis. While some critics call this judicial overreach, the ruling reinforces accountability and aligns with global democratic practices. It ensures Governors act constitutionally, not politically, safeguarding federalism and legislative primacy.
India’s Constitution implies separation of powers and Article 50 urges separating the judiciary from the executive. The system uses judicial review, writs, Article 142, impeachment and appointments to maintain checks and balances. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025), the Supreme Court set timelines for governors, rejected “pocket vetoes,” and used Article 142 to deem pending bills assented. The Advocates (Amendment) Bill 2025 was withdrawn after protests over Bar Council autonomy. An ICJ report flagged appointment and transparency issues. Calls continue for clearer rules and reforms to balance judicial independence and accountability
India’s debate on a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) centres on balancing religious freedom with legal equality. Articles 25–26 protect religious practices, while Article 44 encourages uniform civil laws. Personal laws govern marriage, inheritance, and more, but can conflict with equality under Article 14, especially regarding gender rights. Supporters say a UCC promotes gender justice, legal uniformity, and secularism. Opponents fear erosion of religious autonomy and cultural diversity. Courts back reform but urge sensitivity and gradual change. Scholars recommend an inclusive, phased approach that respects pluralism while advancing equality, reflecting India’s unique constitutional and social fabric.
The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the Governor’s and President’s powers in assenting to state Bills. The reference follows the Court’s April 2024 judgment setting timelines for assent, which sparked debate on judicial overreach. Fourteen key constitutional questions have been referred, including whether Governors’ and the President’s actions are justiciable, if courts can set timelines, and the scope of Article 142. The outcome will shape federalism, separation of powers, and the legislative process, influencing how state laws are enacted in India.
The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the roles of Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The case follows a Tamil Nadu ruling that set timelines for assent and raised debates on judicial power. Key questions include whether Governors and the President must follow ministerial advice, if their discretion is justiciable, and whether courts can set timelines. The outcome will shape federal relations, legislative processes, and the balance between executive and judicial powers.
