Judicial review
3-Jan-2017: SC widens the scope of judicial review
In the case of, Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar, Supreme Court held that re-promulgation of an ordinance was a fraud on the Constitution and that the ordinances passed by the President and the State Governors by bypassing the legislature are not immune from judicial review. The bench stated that since an ordinance has the same force as a law passed by the legislature, it will now be mandatory to place it before the Parliament or the State legislature.
Article 123 of the Constitution of India gives the power and authority to the President of India to issue an ordinance only when both the Houses of Parliament are not in session. In addition, it states that any ordinance can have the same force and effect as a statute of Parliament only if it is laid before both the houses of the Parliament. Further, Ordinance so made will hold good only for a duration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament. Article 213 mandates near identical terms with respect to the ordinances on subject of State authority. It is understood that the authority to issue ordinances shall be used only to meet the emergent demands arising out of extraordinary situations.
Krishna Water Disputes
9-Jan-2017: Supreme court turned down Telangana's plea against Krishna tribunal award
Supreme Court turned down the Telangana government's petition against a decision of the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal-II to limit the re-allocation of the river water only to the two successor States of Andhra and Telangana, and not to dabble with the share of water enjoyed by the other two riparian States — Maharashtra and Karnataka.
Supreme court categorically refused to intervene with the decision of the Water Dispute Tribunal-II to confine the question of re-allocation of river water, post bifurcation of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, to the two successor States of Telangana and Andhra and not all the four riparian States. The tribunal had decided that the details of the re-distribution would be decided as per the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014 by an apex council headed by top officials.
Manipur unrest
31-Jan-2017: Centre to hold tripartite talks with the United Naga Council (UNC) and Manipur government.
United Naga Council (UNC), an umbrella body of Naga groups imposed economic blockade against the Manipur government’s decision to carve out seven new districts. Blockade has disrupted normal life and led to a shortage of essential commodities in the State.
UNC sees the carving of districts as an attempt to curtail the concept of a greater Nagalim. Centre has been accused of turning a blind eye to the activities of the UNC, with which the Union government had signed a framework agreement in 2015 to resolve the decades-old Naga issue.
Constitutionally, no law permits the Centre to interfere in the matter, as law and order is a State subject. Therefore, Home ministry has demanded the chief minister of Manipur to control the situation before the upcoming elections.