A petition to the CJI and the President alleges Orissa HC Judge Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray holds a fake LLB degree, demanding an urgent inquiry and CBI investigation.
The Punjab government has challenged the Governor’s decision to send a reference to the President under Article 200, while the Union government has sought the Supreme Court’s nod to refer the matter to a five-judge constitutional bench.
Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation marks a rare constitutional shake-up, echoing 1969 when India’s Vice-President quit mid-term and the Chief Justice had to step in as acting President.
President of India Today (July 4) appointed Gautam Ashwin Ankhad and Mahendra Madhavrao Nerlikar as Additional Judges of Bombay High Court. Both will serve for two years from the day they assume their duties.
The Delhi High Court has temporarily stayed the CAG’s proposed audit of Ajmer Sharif Dargah’s accounts, citing procedural lapses under the CAG Act. The court found a prima facie case suggesting violations in audit initiation.
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’s ruling in Tamil Nadu’s case against its Governor sets strict limits on gubernatorial discretion. Legal experts warn this could mark a turning point toward judicial overreach in India’s federal system.
The Centre may move Supreme Court to review its ruling on delays in Governor and President assent to State laws. The MHA argues the judgement impacts constitutional procedures and timelines.
In a game-changing verdict, Supreme Court says states can move court if the President withholds assent on bills. Governors and President can’t delay or deny state bills without clear, legal reasons anymore!
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified the roles of the President and Governor regarding State Bills, emphasizing judicial review of presidential actions under Article 201. The Court stated the President must decide on bills within three months and cannot use a pocket veto, demanding clear reasons for withholding assent.
