Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin said the government will not relent until the Constitution is amended to ensure Governors act within fixed timelines on State Bills. He emphasized that Governors cannot delay or kill Bills, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has condemned President Droupadi Murmu’s request to the Supreme Court regarding timelines for Governor assent on State Bills. He argues it undermines constitutional authority and calls it a tactic to weaken opposition-led governments. The Supreme Court previously ruled against delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor, emphasizing judicial authority.
President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether judicial review can apply to the President’s and Governors’ actions regarding state assembly Bills, as constitutional timelines are not specified. This inquiry raises significant issues regarding separation of powers and judicial oversight in the democratic process.
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Telangana Government and the Governor regarding a petition challenging the Governor’s refusal to nominate two leaders as members of the State Legislative Council. The Court has requested responses from involved parties and indicated that any appointments made will be subject to this petition.
The Supreme Court, today led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has taken up a petition from a female employee accusing West Bengal Governor C.V. Ananda Bose of molestation. The court is examining the immunity granted to governors under Article 361 of the Constitution, which shields them from criminal prosecution. The petitioner seeks clear guidelines governing governors’ immunity from prosecution.
A woman employee of the West Bengal Raj Bhawan has moved the Supreme Court over alleged sexual harassment by Governor CV Ananda Bose, challenging the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361. The plea questions the victim being left without recourse and seeks thorough investigation by the West Bengal police, as well as guidelines on the Governor’s immunity.
Today(on 3rd July), The Calcutta High Court will hear West Bengal Governor C V Ananda Bose’s defamation suit against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The suit, filed on June 28, resulted from controversial remarks made by Banerjee, centering around alleged incidents at Raj Bhavan. This case has drawn substantial public and media attention, highlighting the complex interplay between constitutional immunity and legal redress.
![[BREAKING] WB Governor Accused of Sexual Harassment | Does Article 361 Provides Immunity?](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-79.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Allegations of sexual harassment against West Bengal’s Governor, CV Ananda Bose, by a staff member of Raj Bhavan have sparked a heated dispute. The Governor’s claim of immunity under Article 361 is being debated, drawing parallels to past cases. The Supreme Court has upheld absolute immunity for Governors, even in cases of personal misconduct. Such immunity was recognized in a 2017 case involving Kalyan Singh, and historical resignations have occurred amidst similar allegations.
