The Supreme Court, while hearing the Presidential Reference on Governors’ powers, clarified it will not examine the contentious question of whether States can approach under Article 32 instead of Article 131 in Union–State disputes.
The Supreme Court of India declined to urgently hear Tamil Nadu’s petition against the Union government for withholding Rs.2,151.59 crore in educational funds. The state alleges the Centre is improperly linking fund release to compliance with the NEP 2020, which it opposes, highlighting the urgent need for funding to ensure educational quality.
Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court, alleging that the Central government is unlawfully withholding Rs.2,291.30 crore in education funds to coerce compliance with the disputed National Education Policy 2020. The state argues this practice violates constitutional rights and federalism, demanding immediate fund release under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.
BJP MLA approaches Supreme Court to reinstate CBI probe against Karnataka Deputy CM DK Shivakumar for disproportionate assets. Karnataka High Court previously dismissed plea, leading to Supreme Court intervention. Justices express concern over High Court decision and issue notice to Karnataka government and Shivakumar. Case involves Centre-State dispute over CBI jurisdiction.
![[DK Shivakumar DA Case] Karnataka HC Reserves Decision on Plea Challenging State Government's Withdrawal of CBI Consent](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-58-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, 12th July, The Karnataka High Court reserved its decision on the challenge to the state government’s withdrawal of consent for a CBI investigation into DK Shivakumar’s corruption allegations. This case has significant implications for corruption investigations and political dynamics in Karnataka. The controversy surrounding Shivakumar began in 2017, and the CBI’s actions have been criticized by him.
During a Supreme Court hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi humorously declined to offer solicitor general Tushar Mehta an internship under him. The hearing involved an original suit by the West Bengal government against the Centre concerning CBI investigations without state consent. Solicitor General Mehta emphasized the importance of Article 131, stating that the CBI operates independently from the Union of India.
![[Breaking] CBI is Not the Control of Centre, in West Bengal Govt's Suit: SC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Solicitor General clarified that the CBI operates independently and is not controlled by the Union government, countering West Bengal’s lawsuit. The Supreme Court plans to hear the case and emphasized the urgency of concluding arguments before the summer recess. The outcome will set a crucial precedent for the CBI’s authority in such matters.
Today (1st May): The Supreme Court emphasized the misunderstanding of judicial workload by critics who question court vacations. Justices highlighted their dedication, including working on weekends, and the necessity to draft judgments during vacations. The court also addressed the importance of vacations for drafting lengthy judgments and handling heavy caseloads, countering criticism.
Today(on 24th April), The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing on West Bengal’s lawsuit against CBI to May 1, granting more time for arguments. The lawsuit alleges that CBI conducted investigations without state consent. This postponement allows both parties to present their arguments, with significant implications for CBI’s jurisdictional authority and state government independence in law enforcement.
Today: The Supreme Court urged the Centre and Kerala to address fiscal mismanagement. The Kerala government filed a suit alleging Union interference in state finances. The Court stressed the need for ongoing dialogue, emphasizing cooperative federalism. It refrained from setting a specific date for the next hearing, highlighting the importance of a continued dialogue.