President Droupadi Murmu has made an unprecedented move by seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on the extent of judicial powers regarding the imposition of timelines and procedures that Governors and the President must follow when dealing with State Bills. This inquiry arises from a Supreme Court decision dated April 8, 2025, which held a Governor's delays in approving 10 re-passed Bills to be illegal, deeming them approved through a ruling invoking Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

Key Points from the Presidential Reference:

• Judicial Authority: The Reference questions whether the Supreme Court can impose timelines and methods for how the President and Governors handle State Bills under Articles 200 (regarding assent to State Bills) and 201 (concerning Bills reserved for presidential assent).

• Article 142 in Focus: It seeks clarification on whether the Supreme Court can adjudicate constitutional powers of the President and Governors through judicial orders based on Article 142, and if such orders could clash with existing constitutional provisions.

• Validity of Deemed Assent: The President's query indirectly challenges the validity of the "deemed assent" ruling from the Supreme Court, asking if a State Legislature's law can be considered valid without a Governor's consent.

• Justiciability of Decisions: The Reference also touches on whether the decisions made by Governors and the President can be reviewed by the courts before a Bill is enacted into law and if it is permissible for the courts to assess the contents of a Bill in any way ahead of its enactment.

• Governor's Discretion Under Article 200: Several fundamental questions are posed regarding what choices a Governor has when presented with a Bill, including their obligation to adhere to the advice of the Council of Ministers and whether their constitutional discretion is subject to judicial review.

• Conflict in Supreme Court Judgments: The Presidential Reference notes perceived conflicts within the Supreme Court’s past rulings regarding constitutional interpretation and judicial oversight.

• Article 361 Implications: It raises concerns about whether the immunity provided under Article 361 (protection from legal action for the President and Governors) serves as an absolute barrier to judicial review concerning a Governor's action under Article 200.

• Future Considerations: The Reference, dated May 13, 2025, is now in the hands of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, who is expected to form a Constitution Bench for further deliberation on these matters.

Important Points Summarized:

• President Murmu seeks Supreme Court's opinion on judicial powers over State Bills.
• The inquiry stems from a 2025 decision that invalidated a Governor’s inaction on pending Bills.
• Questions whether the Court can impose timelines/methods for Presidents/Governors under Articles 200 and 201.
• Raises concerns about “deemed assent” and its legality in the legislative process.
• Invokes the justiciability of executive decisions taken by Governors/Presidents.
• Federalism implications as the Reference discusses the role of the judiciary in state matters.
• Uncertainties regarding Article 361's immunity from judicial scrutiny.
• The outcome could significantly influence the dynamics of State and Central governance in India.

Overall, the Presidential Reference presents intricate constitutional questions concerning the balance of powers between judicial, executive, and legislative branches in India.

The article discusses the psychological impact of recent conflicts between India and Pakistan, highlighting how both adults and children are grappling with heightened anxiety, stress, and emotional distress. The situation not only recalls traumatic memories from the lockdown during the pandemic but also generates fear of instability and violence.

Summary:

1. Emotional Responses to Conflict:

   • Arthi J, a 39-year-old HR professional, recounts her return to anxiety amidst the India-Pakistan tensions, mirroring her previous struggles during the pandemic with fear and emotional turbulence.
   • The recurrence of anxiety is driven by fears of potential lockdowns, violence, and destabilization in society, sparking worries about the future.

2. Broader Impacts on Residents:

   • Shamima Mir from Srinagar notes that the recent conflict has not only affected emotional well-being but also disrupted daily life, education, and economic recovery.
   • Many residents are left without clear information regarding the situation, leading to further emotional and mental stress.

3. Increase in Mental Health Issues:

   • Dr. Nikita Shah, a psychiatrist, reports a "mass shift" in her patients, with 60% expressing heightened anxiety due to the prevailing circumstances, largely affecting people in their 20s and 30s.
   • The stress is compounded by a constant stream of news and misinformation, leading to feelings of helplessness and pessimism.

4. Children's Anxiety:

   • Children like Sasha Mony and others are also feeling anxious due to exposure to news about the conflict, with parents noticing changes in behavior, such as sleep difficulties and heightened sensitivity to noises.
   • Consultant Nandini Raman emphasizes that children are overwhelmed by constant, often sensationalized information, which can trigger their anxiety.

5. Coping Mechanisms:

   • Experts suggest engaging in coping strategies such as yoga, meditation, drawing, and grounded discussions to manage anxiety levels.
   • It is critical for parents to monitor children for signs of emotional distress and encourage open communication to provide reassurance and support.

6. Community Engagement:

   • Dr. Nikita advocates for less time spent on social media and more community engagement, encouraging mindfulness through silence and appreciation of nature.

7. Long-term Psychological Solutions:

   • Establishing offline connections and reducing the consumption of overwhelming information are vital for improving mental health resilience.
   • Professional help should be sought if emotional changes become pronounced, particularly in children exhibiting significant anxiety-related symptoms.

Important Sentences:

• "I was scared; I felt like crying every day." - Arthi J on her emotional struggle.
• "People had heart attacks, there were blackouts, there was too much stress." - Shamima Mir illustrating community distress.
• "There has been a mass shift since last Thursday." - Dr. Nikita Shah on increasing mental health issues.
• "Children are anxious because there is so much information out there." - Nandini Raman explaining the sources of children's anxiety.
• "Creating offline communities will help in the long run." - Dr. Nikita on fostering support systems.
• "Age-appropriate communication is key." - Nandini emphasizing the need for suitable discussions with children.
• "Even something as simple as going for a walk makes a difference." - Dr. Nikita on mindfulness practices.

In conclusion, the emotional toll of geopolitical conflict and its repercussions on mental health is significant. Addressing these issues requires community engagement, supportive parenting, and effective coping strategies to foster resilience in individuals, especially children.

The Jharkhand High Court has mandated the enforcement of a previously established ban on the consumption and sale of meat, alcohol, and other intoxicants on Parasnath Hill, regarded as sacred by both the Santal Adivasi and Jain communities. This hill, known as Marang Buru to the Santals and Parasnath to the Jains, is located in Giridih district and has been the center of a longstanding conflict between the two communities.

Summary:

• Sacred Significance: Parasnath Hill is believed by Jains to be where 20 of the 24 Jain tirthankaras attained nirvana. It is dotted with over 40 Jain temples. The Santals view Marang Buru as their supreme deity and a significant site for their traditional rituals, particularly at sacred locations like Jug Jaher Than and Dishom Manjhi Than.
• Cultural Interrelation: Historically, Santals supported Jains in their spiritual practices, and both communities have coexisted respectfully until recent tensions arose concerning rituals and practices, particularly around hunting on the hill during the Sendra festival.
• Historical Context: Records indicate that conflict over the hill dates back to at least 1911 when Santal rituals were officially documented. The Jains claim that an ancient king donated the hill to their community, while the Santals have seen their traditional rights diminishing over time, especially post-Independence.
• Legal Battles: A series of court cases have addressed the rights of the Adivasi communities to hunt on Parasnath Hill, with past rulings favoring their claims. Despite this, the advent of the Wildlife Protection Act and new administrative measures in 1978 have curtailed Santal rights on the hill.
• Recent Developments: A 2023 government memorandum ordered a ban on the sale of meat and alcohol within a 25 km radius around Parasnath Hill, impacting around 99 villages, most of which are Adivasi. This has been met with resistance and claims by local Adivasi groups over their right to perform cultural rituals.
• Current Enforcement: Following the High Court's order to uphold the government memo, enforcement activities have increased in the area, including the deployment of additional local law enforcement resources.

Important Points:

• The Jharkhand High Court has reinforced a ban on the sale and consumption of meat and alcohol on the sacred Parasnath Hill.
• Parasnath is of great religious importance to both the Jains and Santals, resulting in a complex historical relationship.
• The hill is home to significant rituals and has a colorful history of Adivasi rights, especially concerning traditional practices like hunting.
• The Santals hold that their long-standing cultural rituals have been compromised by modern laws and the rights of the Jains are often prioritized.
• Ongoing tensions reflect broader struggles of Indigenous rights against governmental and religious pressures.
• Local Adivasi organizations are actively challenging these restrictions and asserting their cultural and religious practices.

Through these developments, the story highlights the ongoing conflict and interplay between traditional rights of Adivasi communities and religious sentiments of the Jain community, placing a spotlight on issues of cultural preservation and legal rights in contemporary India.

Last month, the Indian government implemented restrictions on a fixed drug combination (FDC) used in cough syrups for children under four years old. This decision aims to mitigate risks associated with the drug, which contains chlorpheniramine maleate and phenylephrine hydrochloride. While chlorpheniramine is an antihistamine, phenylephrine is a decongestant, and the combination has raised concerns among pediatricians regarding its safety for young children.

Key points regarding the restrictions and reactions from healthcare and pharmacy communities are outlined below:

• Government Directive: The Union Ministry of Health issued a gazette notification on April 15, indicating that the FDC poses risks to children under four and emphasizing the availability of safer alternatives.

• Expert Opinions: Pediatricians have expressed support for the government's decision, highlighting that the inclusion of sedative antihistamines like chlorpheniramine with phenylephrine can lead to unpredictable side effects on heart rate and blood pressure in young children.

• Safety Concerns: Pediatric specialists, including T.U. Sukumaran, noted that first-generation antihistamines can result in complications like respiratory depression and apnea in young children. Many over-the-counter syrups still use chlorpheniramine due to its sedative properties, but this poses a risk of serious side effects.

• Availability of Alternatives: Experts recommend second-generation antihistamines, such as cetirizine and fexofenadine, as safer options for treating allergies and cold symptoms in children.

• Legal Developments: Following petitions from pharmaceutical companies disputing the ban, the Delhi High Court ruled on April 24 that the ban would be enforced prospectively. Consequently, companies were ordered to inform stakeholders about the restriction, but existing stock prior to the ban was allowed to be sold.

• Pharmacy Confusion: Concerns have arisen among pharmacists regarding the management and communication of the ban, with many retailers expressing confusion over compliance. There have been reports that some pharmacies still carry the restricted drugs.

• Operational Challenges: There is an acknowledged shortage of drug inspectors, particularly in states like Tamil Nadu, making enforcement of regulations challenging. Furthermore, many pharmacies operate without qualified pharmacists, exacerbating the issue of appropriate drug dispensation.

• Pediatric Recommendations: Healthcare professionals encourage parents to evaluate the cause of coughs and colds rather than immediately resorting to medication. They suggest that symptomatic treatment is not always necessary, as many coughs stem from viral infections that resolve on their own.

• Public Awareness: The importance of informing healthcare professionals and the public about these changes was emphasized. Pediatricians advocate for medical education programs and better dissemination of information to ensure both practitioners and the public understand safe practices for treating cold symptoms in children.

• Responsibility on Parents: Doctors emphasize that parents should obtain cough medications through prescriptions and avoid self-medicating their children without consulting a healthcare professional to ensure safety.

In summary, the Indian government's move to restrict certain cold medications for young children has received positive feedback from pediatricians, who cite significant safety concerns. However, the resultant confusion among pharmacies and the need for better public awareness highlight the challenges of implementing such regulatory changes effectively.

Important Sentences:

• The Indian government restricted the use of an FDC containing chlorpheniramine maleate and phenylephrine hydrochloride for children under four.
• Pediatricians support the ban due to unpredictable risks associated with these drugs in young children.
• The Delhi High Court ruled that the ban would be enforced prospectively, allowing existing stock to be sold.
• Confusion among pharmacists raises concerns about the communication and management of the ban.
• There is a shortage of drug inspectors complicating the enforcement of the new regulations.
• Healthcare professionals encourage parents to seek medical advice before medicating children and not to rush to use over-the-counter syrups.

The National Commission for Women (NCW) recently launched the 'Campus Calling' program, an initiative designed to enhance gender sensitivity, prevent sexual harassment, and address cyber crimes affecting students. The program, in collaboration with 'Yuvamanthan,' seeks to empower youth and create safe educational environments across India. Aiming to reach over 1,000 universities and colleges, it serves as a significant step toward combatting gender-based discrimination and harassment.

Key Points:

• Launch of 'Campus Calling': The NCW announced the 'Campus Calling' program on May 16, 2025, to promote gender sensitivity and prevent sexual harassment and cyber crimes in educational institutions.

• Collaboration: The initiative is in partnership with ‘Yuvamanthan,’ a youth development platform focused on aiding students.

• Extensive Coverage: It aims to engage over 1,000 universities and colleges, representing one of the largest youth-focused efforts by the NCW.

• Empowerment Goals: The program is designed to equip students with essential knowledge and skills against gender discrimination and online harassment.

• Significant Statements by NCW Chairperson: During the launch at Swami Vivekanand Subharti University in Meerut, NCW Chairperson Vijaya Rahatkar emphasized India's progress, highlighting women's advancements in various fields like combat roles and technology.

• Youth Potential: Rahatkar noted that Indian youth are pivotal to the country's progress, referring to the current era as a ‘golden period’ — the 'Amrit Kaal' — enabling India's aspirations for development.

• Student Pledge: Participants in the program committed to promoting gender sensitivity, preventing harassment, and ensuring cyber safety by taking a pledge during the launch event.

• Campus Ambassadors: Each institution selected two female and two male ambassadors tasked with leading sensitization efforts among their peers to cultivate an environment of safety and respect.

• Organizing Bodies: The launch event involved collaboration among various university committees focused on women's empowerment, gender sensitization, and equity.

Overall, 'Campus Calling' embodies a comprehensive approach to fostering gender equality and cybersecurity in educational contexts, reflecting a proactive strategy by the NCW and its partners to empower future generations.

Summary:

President Droupadi Murmu has issued a Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court seeking clarity on whether judicial orders can set timelines and methodologies for the President and Governors in dealing with State Bills, as stipulated in Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The inquiry emerges from a Supreme Court judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, involving the Tamil Nadu government's challenge against the Governor's delay in approving certain Bills, which the court deemed unlawful. The judgment led to the application of Article 142, allowing the court to rule that the aforementioned Bills had received assent, a decision now under scrutiny in the Presidential Reference.

The Reference is critical as it raises several pivotal questions regarding the boundaries of constitutional authority, the implications of the Supreme Court's prior rulings, and the justiciability of actions taken by the Governor and the President regarding Bill approval. Specifically, the President is asking if the judicial system can prescribe timelines and procedures that align or contradict existing constitutional provisions. Moreover, it questions the validity of deemed assent for Bills that have not received formal approval from the Governor, as well as the Governor's obligation to follow the advice of the State Cabinet.

Key inquiries made in the Reference include:

• Governor’s Options under Article 200: What constitutional alternatives are available to a Governor when presented with a Bill?
• Aiding Council of Ministers: Is the Governor required to adhere to the Council of Ministers' advice?
• Justiciability of Constitutional Discretion: Can the exercise of a Governor’s discretion under Article 200 or a President’s discretion under Article 201 be legally reviewed?
• Judicial Review Immunity under Article 361: Does Article 361 provide absolute immunity against legal action for Presidents and Governors concerning their official decisions?
• Judicial Authority over Legislative Proceedings: To what extent can courts intervene in the legislative process before a Bill becomes law?
• Article 142’s Scope: Can judicial powers under Article 142 extend beyond procedural matters and contradict substantive constitutional provisions?
• Mandatory Supreme Court Bench Requirement: Does a Supreme Court bench have to refer significant constitutional interpretation cases to a five-judge panel as outlined in Article 145(3)?

The Reference reveals apprehensions about judicial overreach and its potential impact on the constitutional powers of elected officials. It further questions the practical implications of judicial decisions on the legislative process, particularly concerning timelines and the nature of Governor and Presidential powers in relation to state legislation.

Important Sentences:

• President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court's opinion on whether it can impose timelines on the President and Governors regarding State Bills.
• The inquiry arises from a Supreme Court ruling declaring the Governor's inaction on Tamil Nadu Bills illegal.
• The Presidential Reference questions if judicial orders can dictate the conduct of the President and Governors, per Articles 200 and 201.
• The Supreme Court's ruling used Article 142 to imply assent for ten State Bills amid arguments about constitutional appropriateness.
• Key questions raised include the justiciability of governors and the President’s actions, along with the bounds of judicial authority over legislative conduct.
• This moves towards addressing the balance of powers and judicial intervention in legislative processes.
• The Reference also questions conflicting Supreme Court judgments and the requirements for referring significant legal questions to larger benches.

President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on whether there should be a timeline for Presidents and Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies, referencing Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution. This move follows a Supreme Court ruling from April 8, which established a three-month deadline for the President to decide on Bills reserved by Governors. The advisory jurisdiction allows the President to seek legal clarity on constitutional matters but does not bind the court to respond, as illustrated by past instances where the Supreme Court declined to answer presidential queries.

Key Points:

• Presidential Reference: President Droupadi Murmu has invoked the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction regarding timelines for acting on state Assembly Bills.
• Context of the Query: This request follows a previous Supreme Court decision that set a three-month deadline for the President concerning Bills from Governors.
• Advisory Jurisdiction: Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on significant legal questions. The court’s response is not mandatory, as indicated by historical instances where the Supreme Court refused to provide opinions.
• Historical Context: The legal framework for such queries has roots in the Government of India Act, 1935. Since 1950, this prerogative has been used by various Presidents, totaling at least 15 occasions.
• Supreme Court's Discretion: The Supreme Court has the authority to choose whether or not to respond to a presidential reference, which could impact political dynamics.
• Significant Rulings: Past refusals include a 1993 request related to the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid dispute, where the court cited an ongoing civil suit as a reason not to answer.
• Potential Outcomes: The Supreme Court's decisions are not precedents; thus, even if it were to deem a law unconstitutional in an advisory opinion, it would not affect subsequent legality proceedings.
• Limits of Advisory Power: The Supreme Court clarified that Article 143 is not intended for reviewing its previous rulings, asserting that the President cannot use this mechanism to challenge established judicial decisions.
• Composition of Bench: Advisory references under Article 143 must be heard by a five-judge bench to ensure comprehensive deliberation.
• Broader Implications: The presidential reference touches on the balance of power between the Centre and state governments, especially concerning the role of governors in withholding assent on legislation.
• Judicial vs. Legislative Supremacy: The ruling and subsequent actions raise concerns about the potential encroachment of judicial power over parliamentary procedures, a debate that has historical precedence in Indian constitutional discussions.
• Pending Legal Challenges: Further legal challenges regarding similar issues from various states may lead to more Supreme Court interpretations or a referral to a larger constitutional bench.

The unfolding legal discourse underscores the delicate equilibrium of powers among the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches in India, reflecting ongoing tensions that have persisted since independence.

The US Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a significant case concerning President Donald Trump’s executive order that seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are undocumented or temporarily in the country. This case marks the first to reach the Supreme Court during the second Trump presidency and addresses substantial issues regarding presidential authority, judicial power, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Key Details:

• Executive Order Context: Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office, which targets the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, historically granting citizenship to nearly all individuals born on US soil.
• Legal Challenges: The order faced immediate legal challenges from states, immigrant rights groups, and other organizations, resulting in federal judges from Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts blocking its implementation due to likely unconstitutionality.
• Supreme Court's Role: While the Supreme Court is not directly addressing the constitutionality of the executive order, it is reviewing emergency appeals from the Trump administration to ease or overturn the nationwide injunctions imposed by lower courts.

Judicial Perspectives:

• Nationwide Injunction Concerns: Justices expressed a tentative inclination to maintain the injunction against the executive order while also voicing concerns over the widespread use of nationwide injunctions. Justice Alito highlighted the risk of judicial overreach, while Chief Justice Roberts and others discussed alternatives through class-action lawsuits.
• Practical Implications: During deliberations, Justice Kavanaugh raised practical questions regarding implementation, such as how hospitals and states would manage newborns without clear citizenship designations. The government was criticized for lacking a coherent policy for addressing these scenarios.
• Skepticism from the Bench: Justices, including Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, exhibited skepticism towards the Trump administration's arguments, suggesting it might lead to a chaotic legal landscape and potential statelessness for some newborns.

Legal Representatives' Arguments:

• States' Opposition: New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum asserted that the executive order would create administrative issues and strip millions of US citizen children of necessary public benefits.
• Response from Rights Groups: Attorney Kelsi Corkran contended that the order is "blatantly unlawful," emphasizing that prior rulings against it have been unanimous among judges who addressed the matter, and questioned the practicality of class-action lawsuits as substitutes for systemic remedies.

Trump’s Public Commentary:

Ahead of the hearing, Trump voiced his opinion online, critiquing the US birthright citizenship policy and incorrectly asserting that the US is unique in its practice of offering birthright citizenship.

Court Proceedings Outlook:

At the conclusion of the two-hour hearing, the Supreme Court justices indicated they would deliver their ruling by the end of June 2024, aligning with their standard timetable for decisions on such significant cases. The outcome of this case could significantly affect not only immigration policy but also the extent to which lower courts can block federal initiatives.

Important Sentences:

• The US Supreme Court heard a landmark case regarding Trump's executive order targeting birthright citizenship.
• The order has faced legal challenges, resulting in nationwide injunctions from federal judges.
• Justices exhibited concern about the use of nationwide injunctions and practical implications of the order.
• There is skepticism from several justices regarding the administration's arguments and potential outcomes for newborns.
• The Court's decision could impact both immigration policy and judicial authority at lower levels.

This case underscores the complex interplay of immigration law, presidential power, and judicial oversight, with potential long-term implications for US citizenship rights.

The Kerala government is taking legal action against the Central government in India for withholding Rs 1,500 crore in funding tied to various education schemes. Kerala's Education Minister V Sivankutty has asserted that this withholding of funds is a consequence of the state's non-participation in the PM Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI) initiative, which is a centrally sponsored program aimed at enhancing school quality in alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

Key Points:

• Legal Action: The Kerala government plans to approach the Supreme Court regarding the withheld funds.

• Funding Details: The Central government has not released Rs 1,500 crore intended for the education sector in Kerala, which includes financial support from the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan scheme.

• PM SHRI Scheme Overview:

  • Launched by the Union Ministry of School Education and Literacy.
  • Aims to upgrade over 14,500 schools nationwide to model institutions.
  • Total project cost is Rs 27,360 crore over five years (2022-27), with the Centre covering 66% of the expenses.

• Participation Issues:

  • Currently, 12,400 schools from various states, excluding Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, are part of the PM SHRI scheme.
  • These states have not signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to participate in the scheme.

• Kerala’s Opposition to PM SHRI:

  • The state government, led by CPI(M), opposes the PM SHRI scheme, viewing it as a mechanism for "saffronisation" of education.
  • Concerns are raised that the scheme would place state schools under Central control.
  • Kerala officials argue that they have already implemented many aspects put forth by the PM SHRI scheme, having developed significant educational infrastructure, including 40,000 smart classrooms in state schools.

• Impact of Funding Withholding:

  • The state government warns that the lack of funding will significantly affect various educational initiatives in Kerala.
  • Impact on the universal education efforts intended for children aged 6 to 14 could be severe, potentially harming students.

The conflict between the Kerala government and the Central government underscores broader issues regarding educational policies and governance in India, particularly the influence of national schemes on state-run education systems.