News Summary: In Surender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal confined to the question whether the appellant’s conviction under Section…
News summary The news concerns the Supreme Court’s decision to constitute a Secondary Medical Board at AIIMS, New Delhi, to reassess a father’s plea for passive…
News summary In its advisory opinion in In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, Special Reference No.…
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 Supreme Court in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. reaffirmed that an agreement to sell, without a suit for specific performance, cannot confer ownership or title in immovable property. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that only a registered sale deed can legally convey title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court rejected the respondent’s reliance on a 2014 agreement to sell and a revoked PoA, reiterating that such documents are not conveyances. Citing Suraj Lamp and other precedents, the Court emphasized that agreements to sell cannot substitute a registered deed of conveyance.
