sadalawpublications.com

Federalism

Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds

Trending Today Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into ₹3,200 Crore Bihar Foodgrain Scam: Political Fallout and Fight Against Corruption INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERVENOR LEGAL SOLUTIONS, NEW DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEMVATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY, UTTARAKHAND LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEAD DIGITAL WORKS, DELHI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VOYAGER CAPITAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE & POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, BHOPAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEGALNEST PROFESSIONAL ADVISORY LLP, MUMBAI Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds KASHISH JAHAN 30 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Centre over the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Rules, 2024. Read how this fresh constitutional challenge could reshape India’s citizenship laws, secularism, and federal principles. Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: New Constitutional Challenge Emerges On 26 June 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Union Government over multiple petitions challenging the newly notified Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Rules, 2024. This action reignites national debate around India’s citizenship laws, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal dispute over the controversial CAA — a law that has triggered nationwide protests, legal battles, and significant political and constitutional discourse. Why Are the 2024 CAA Rules Being Challenged? Petitions have been filed by civil rights organizations, student groups, and individuals — particularly from Assam and West Bengal. These petitioners argue that the new CAA Rules violate the secular nature of the Indian Constitution and override protections intended for indigenous populations in the North-East. The Rules aim to facilitate citizenship for non-Muslim minorities — namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians — from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Critics argue that by excluding Muslims, the Rules violate the principle of equality under Article 14. Moreover, these Rules are claimed to undermine the Assam Accord and special constitutional safeguards that protect the linguistic and cultural identity of North-Eastern states. What Transpired in the Supreme Court? A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud heard the matter. Senior advocates for the petitioners argued that the Rules, implemented after a four-year delay, could potentially alter the demographic balance of regions like Assam by allowing a significant influx of new “eligible migrants.” The Union Government, represented by the Attorney General of India, defended the Rules as consistent with the legislative intent of the CAA passed in 2019. The Centre argued that the Rules merely give procedural effect to an already validated law. However, the Bench noted that these new Rules introduce practical implications such as relaxed procedures, simplified documentation, and new eligibility cut-off dates — all of which warrant renewed judicial scrutiny. Next Steps: A Broader Constitutional Review in Sight The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre and demanded a comprehensive response within four weeks. The case has been clubbed with over 200 pending petitions challenging the constitutionality of the original CAA. The Court also indicated it may constitute a larger Constitution Bench to resolve all associated constitutional issues together. Wider Implications: Citizenship, Secularism, and Federal Autonomy This legal challenge revives intense discussions around India’s foundational values. Critics argue that religion-based citizenship violates secularism as enshrined in the Preamble and contravenes equality under Article 14. Additionally, it may undermine the federal structure by disregarding agreements like the Assam Accord that protect local identities. While the government positions the CAA as a humanitarian step to aid persecuted minorities, its opponents believe it dangerously redefines Indian citizenship along religious lines. What to Expect in the Coming Months? According to legal experts, the Supreme Court’s final decision on the CAA Rules could set a historic precedent affecting future immigration and citizenship laws in India. Meanwhile, states like Assam and Bengal — where local identity politics are deeply intertwined with migration issues — may witness heightened protests and mobilizations. The nation now waits as the judiciary prepares to deliver its verdict on whether the CAA Rules can pass the constitutional test, or whether the Court will once again reinforce its role as the guardian of the basic structure doctrine. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Sada Law • June 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into ₹3,200 Crore Bihar Foodgrain Scam: Political Fallout and Fight Against Corruption Sada Law • June 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Weapon Recovery Alone Insufficient for Murder Conviction Sada Law • June 28, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Read More »

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation

Trending Today Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 21 May 2025 Tamil Nadu has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the release of Rs 2291 crores under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. The state argues the Union Government’s move to link the funds with NEP 2020 implementation is unconstitutional. Tamil Nadu Sues Union Government Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crores Linked to NEP 2020 In a significant federal challenge, Tamil Nadu has filed a constitutional petition under Article 131 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court of India. The state seeks to recover over Rs 2291 crores allegedly withheld by the Union Government under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS), citing non-implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools initiative. State Seeks Immediate Release of Funds and Legal Declaration Tamil Nadu alleges that tying SSS funding to NEP 2020 and PM SHRI School implementation is “unconstitutional, illegal, unreasonable, and arbitrary.” It demands not only the withheld Rs 2291 crores but also interest and a declaration affirming that such conditionality violates the principles of cooperative federalism. Project Approval and Denied Disbursement According to the plaint, the Project Approval Board sanctioned Rs 3585.99 crores on February 16, 2024, for the financial year 2024–2025. Under the 60:40 sharing ratio, Rs 2151.59 crores were due from the Centre. Despite formal approval, the Union has not released any installments, allegedly using the non-adoption of NEP 2020 as justification. NEP 2020 and PM SHRI: Key Points of Contention The Union Government is accused of conditioning SSS disbursements on Tamil Nadu’s signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to implement NEP 2020 and designate exemplary PM SHRI Schools. However, Tamil Nadu opposes the NEP’s three-language policy, citing its constitutional and cultural implications. The Centre identified approximately 1100 PM SHRI schools in Tamil Nadu and requested compliance via letters dated February 23 and March 7, 2024. The state responded on July 6, 2024, requesting amendments to the MoU, particularly clauses related to full-scale NEP implementation. No Statutory Requirement to Adopt NEP 2020 Tamil Nadu contends that NEP 2020 is a policy document without statutory backing, and thus its implementation cannot be a prerequisite for funding under SSS, a legally mandated initiative per the Right to Education Act, 2009. The state argues that linking unrelated schemes undermines its autonomy and the constitutional structure of federalism. Wider Impact Across Other States Tamil Nadu claims similar fund denials were imposed on Kerala and West Bengal. These delays have reportedly disrupted salary payments, teacher training, textbook distribution, and infrastructure development in government schools. Legal Precedents Support State Autonomy The petition references the 2022 judgment in Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited, reaffirming states’ rights to resist coercive federal practices. It also points to a recent Supreme Court ruling that clarified no state can be legally compelled to implement NEP 2020. Legal Representation The case was filed by Advocate Sabarish Subramanian and presented by Senior Advocate P. Wilson, underscoring the constitutional gravity and national implications of the case. Conclusion: A Defining Legal Battle for Federalism and Education Policy Tamil Nadu’s legal action against the Union Government highlights a pivotal constitutional and political debate over the boundaries of federalism, statutory funding obligations, and the discretionary nature of national policy implementation like NEP 2020. By invoking Article 131, the state is not only fighting for the release of Rs 2291 crores under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, but also asserting its constitutional autonomy against perceived overreach by the Centre. As this case unfolds in the Supreme Court, it could set a significant precedent regarding the limits of central influence over state-level education policies and funding mechanisms. The outcome will be closely watched by states like Kerala and West Bengal, who face similar challenges, and by education stakeholders across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Read More »

JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370

Trending Today JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU Role of technology in transforming the Indian judiciary COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Impact of Contract Law on E-Commerce and Online Transactions Indian Parliament Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases Triviality section 95 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KERALA & Ors JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370: A SOCIO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION 01 Mar 2025 Introduction Article 370 of the Indian Constitution has been one of the most contentious topics since its establishment. Its relevance, consequences, and political and legal discourse have all had a considerable impact on India’s constitutional and political landscape. This article dives into the historical backdrop, legal framework, debates, and final repeal of Article 370, providing a thorough explanation of its history and relevance. Historical Context. The integration of Jammu and KashmirArticle 370 has its roots in the turbulent time of 1947, when British India was divided into two distinct sovereign states: India and Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, monarch of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, initially sought independence. However, faced with an invasion by tribal militias from Pakistan, he requested military aid from India. In exchange, he signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, which admitted Jammu and Kashmir to India. This accession was remarkable in that it granted the state extensive autonomy in accordance with the wording of the Instrument. The deliberation of Article 370Article 370 of the Indian Constitution legally enshrines Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. This Article was written to reflect the parameters of the Memorandum of Acquisition while also addressing the specific circumstances under which Jammu and Kashmir joined India. Article 370, drafted by former Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister Gopalaswami Ayyangar, was intended to be a temporary provision until a permanent resolution could be reached. Objectives of Article 370 Sovereignty and Special DesignationArticle 370 awarded Jammu and Kashmir a unique autonomy status. Unlike the other Indian states, Jammu and Kashmir had its own constitution, which went into effect on January 26, 1957. The Indian Parliament’s legislative powers over the state were confined to defence, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, as stated in the Protocol of Accession. Any other laws could only be applied to Jammu and Kashmir with the approval of the state administration. Presidential Decree and Constituent Assembly ResolutionsUnder Article 370(1)(d), the President of India had the authority to apply other parts of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir, subject to exclusions and adjustments, and with the authorization of the state administration. This was accomplished through presidential orders. Furthermore, Article 370(2) indicated that the Article will terminate upon the advice of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. Yet after the Constituent Assembly dissolved in 1957 without adopting abrogation, Article 370 remained in effect. Disagreements and constitutional interpretations The Talk Over PermanenceThe portrayal of Article 370 as a transitory clause sparked heated debate. Critics contended that Article 370 was only designed to be temporary and would expire once the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir declared its fate. However, advocates said that because the Constituent Assembly did not recommend its repeal, Article 370 had become a permanent part of the Constitution. Supreme Court verdictsThe Supreme Court of India has played an important role in enforcing Article 370. In the 2018 decision of *SBI v. Santosh Gupta*, the Court maintained that Article 370 was not a transitional provision and had gained permanent character due to the absence of a recommendation for its repeal by the Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, in several decisions, the Supreme Court underscored the autonomy afforded to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370, underscoring that any changes to its status required authorization of the state government. Presidential DecreeThroughout the decades, multiple Presidential Orders have been issued to extend various parts of the Indian Constitution and central laws to Jammu & Kashmir. Critics said that this approach degraded the state’s distinctive position, effectively reducing its autonomy. However, proponents said that these orders were required to further integrate Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India and establish legal and administrative uniformity. The Abrogation of Article 370 Political PerspectiveThe Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological father, the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have been vocal advocates for the repeal of Article 370. The BJP’s programme has constantly included the repeal of Article 370, which it sees as a barrier to national unification and growth. The BJP won a large mandate in the 2019 general elections, allowing it to pursue its programme. Legislative and Philosophical ManoeuvresOn August 5, 2019, the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, announced the repeal of Article 370. This was achieved through a series of legal and political manoeuvres.    1. Presidential Order C.O. 272: This order essentially modified Article 367 of the Indian Constitution, which addresses interpretations. It included a clause declaring that references in Article 370 to the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly should be construed as references to the state’s Legislative Assembly. Considering the state was under President’s Rule (direct control by the central government), the Parliament of India was empowered to act on behalf of the Legislative Assembly.        2.The resolution in Parliament: Concurrently, a resolution in Parliament was passed recommending that the President issue an order under Article 370(3) announcing that all Article 370 sections would no longer be in effect.   3. Reorganisation Act: Parliament introduced and approved the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act in 2019, which divided the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with a Legislative Assembly) and Ladakh (without one).  Judicial Limitations and the consequences The repeal of Article 370 provoked intense debate and multiple legal challenges. The petitioners claimed that Presidential Order C.O. 272 and subsequent measures violated the Constitution and harmed the notion of federalism. They maintained that such a fundamental constitutional reform required the assent of the Constituent Assembly, or at

JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 Read More »