The post Supreme Court Affirms Governor’s Power to Reserve Bills for Presidential Review in Second Instance appeared first on The Edge Media.
]]>A five judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai explained, that under the first proviso to Article 200, a Governor initially has three choices to approve the bill to withhold and return it with recommendations or to reserve it for the President.
The judges noted that this discretionary power at the first stage is crucial for opening a constructive constitutional exchange between institutions.
The Bench which also included Justices Surya Kant Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar emphasised that the first proviso cannot be interpreted as removing the Governor’s power to reserve a bill, after it is returned. Once the legislature reconsiders the bill the Governor is left with two options to approve the bill or to refer it to the President regardless of whether the bill has been altered or left unchanged.
The court observed that the second proviso to Article 200 reinforces this position by directing that if the Governor believes a bill may diminish the authority of the High Court or threaten its role within the constitutional structure the bill must be reserved for Presidential review.
While analysing the scope of the Governor’s authority after a bill is reconsidered, the court clarified that the instruction in the first proviso stating that the Governor shall not withhold assent applies only to the option of withholding. It does not restrict the Governor’s authority to either approve or reserve the bill. The court rejected arguments that the Governor is compelled to grant assent once the bill returns from the legislature. According to the judges, such a reading contradicts, the second proviso which specifically allows the President to examine bills that may affect the High Court’s constitutional position.
The Bench concluded that acknowledging both options, granting assent or reserving the bill encourages, a healthy consultative dialogue between constitutional bodies, aligning with the cooperative principles inherent in India’s constitutional design.
On the issue of federalism, the court stated that state legislatures have the right to shape policy within the boundaries set by the Constitution. It would undermine federal principles to allow a Governor to permanently block a bill without first engaging in the constitutionally mandated dialogue under Article 200.
The judgment added that the first proviso, which triggers communication between the Governor and the legislature and the authority to reserve a bill under the main part of Article 200 together, represent the collaborative spirit of Indian federalism. These mechanisms reflect the checks and balances that the Constitution expects institutions to follow. The court underscored that constitutional functioning should prioritize dialogue resolution and balance rather than obstruction.
Article 200 outlines how Governors manage bills passed by state legislatures. They may approve the bill withhold it return it with recommendations or reserve it for Presidential decision.
The Supreme Court delivered this interpretation in response to a Presidential Reference submitted by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1). The President sought clarity on whether courts could impose time limits on the exercise of discretion by constitutional authorities while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
The post Supreme Court Affirms Governor’s Power to Reserve Bills for Presidential Review in Second Instance appeared first on The Edge Media.
]]>The post What’s Next? SC Revises Stray Dog Order, Directs Sterilisation and Return but Dog Lovers, NGOs Asked to Deposit Costs appeared first on The Edge Media.
]]>The three-judge special bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, described the earlier blanket prohibition on release as “too harsh”. The court clarified that rabid and aggressive dogs would continue to be kept in shelters, while municipal bodies must maintain aggressive sterilisation drives to reduce stray populations.
Deposits by NGOs and Dog Lovers
In a significant move, the Court required individuals and NGOs opposing the August 11 order to deposit money before being heard further:
-
₹25,000 by individual dog lovers
-
₹2 lakh by NGOs
The amounts must be paid within seven days to the Court registry and will be utilised for building stray dog infrastructure under the supervision of municipal bodies.
“Failing which, they shall not be allowed to appear in the matter any further,” the bench warned.
Adoption of Stray Dogs Permitted
The bench allowed dog lovers to formally adopt strays through municipal bodies. Once adopted, the canines must be tagged and permanently kept off the streets.
“It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the adopted stray dogs do not return to the streets,” the order said.
Sterilisation and Vaccination Emphasised
The Court stressed that aggressive sterilisation is the most effective way to curb the rising stray dog population.
-
Towns like Dehradun and Lucknow, which implemented sterilisation as per the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, saw a steady decline in stray populations.
-
The bench also referred to chemical castration as a potentially safe and painless alternative method of sterilisation.
The Court acknowledged, however, that such intensive sterilisation was only possible in an “idealistic situation”, which may be difficult to achieve in Delhi-NCR.
Balancing Rights and Safety
At the heart of the case lies a sensitive balance — the right of stray dogs to live on the streets versus the safety of citizens, particularly children and elderly people, vulnerable to dog bites and rabies.
The Court noted that rabies infections are often fatal and must be treated as a grave public health risk.
What’s next is the implementation test: municipal bodies across Delhi-NCR must now roll out aggressive sterilisation and vaccination drives, create designated feeding zones, and ensure shelters are prepared to house aggressive or rabid dogs. NGOs and dog lovers who wish to remain part of the proceedings will have to deposit the required sums, while those seeking to adopt must formally take responsibility for keeping strays off the streets. At the same time, the Court is expected to work toward framing a uniform national policy on stray dog management, making this ruling a potential template for other states.
The post What’s Next? SC Revises Stray Dog Order, Directs Sterilisation and Return but Dog Lovers, NGOs Asked to Deposit Costs appeared first on The Edge Media.
]]>The post Supreme Court Verdict on Stray Dogs Spurs Criticism and Chaos appeared first on The Edge Media.
]]>A Logistical and Financial Storm
The order demands relocating an estimated one million stray dogs within six to eight weeks, with costs projected at ₹15,000 crore. Municipal bodies say the target is “impossible without chaos.”
“This is not a plan; it’s a recipe for failure. We don’t have the infrastructure, the staff, or the funds to do this without massive suffering — for both dogs and people,” said an official from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, requesting anonymity.
Humane Approach Discarded
The verdict overturns the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which promote sterilization, vaccination, and release. Animal rights advocates say it sets India back decades in humane animal management.
“We’ve spent 20 years building a scientific, humane model. In one stroke, it’s been replaced by panic-driven removal. This isn’t animal management — it’s displacement,” said Maneka Gandhi, MP and long-time animal welfare campaigner.
Ecological & Public Health Risks
Experts warn that sudden removal will create a “vacuum effect,” drawing aggressive, unvaccinated dogs into new territories and increasing the risk of rabies outbreaks.
“When you disrupt a stable stray dog population, you invite more unvaccinated and potentially aggressive dogs into the area. Rabies doesn’t respect legal orders,” said Dr. Rajeev Sharma, epidemiologist.
Voices from the Street
In Delhi, protests have broken out against the ruling, with 35–40 activists detained outside Connaught Place. Protesters called the order “inhumane” and “dangerous.”
“These dogs are part of our communities. They protect us, they belong here. Removing them will harm them — and us,” said television actor Rupali Ganguly, joining demonstrators.
Political Pushback
Members of the Gandhi family united in rare consensus to oppose the verdict. Rahul Gandhi called it “short-sighted,” while Priyanka Gandhi said it “ignores empathy as a value in governance.”
“If a nation loses empathy, it slides toward insensitivity. This order is not only unkind, it’s unsafe,” said Rahul Gandhi.
Conflict Within the Supreme Court
On Tuesday, advocate Nanita Sharma brought the matter to the attention of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, highlighting that two different benches of the apex court have issued contradictory directions on stray dog management. She pointed out that a bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol had earlier ruled against the indiscriminate killing of canines, stating, “Compassion for all living beings has to be there.”
“I will look into this,” the Chief Justice responded, as quoted by ANI.
Confusion Beyond Delhi
In Panchkula, a sterilization centre reported being “flooded with calls” from residents fearing mass dog removals. Officials stressed that the SC order applies only to Delhi-NCR.
“The level of panic shows how poorly communicated this ruling was. People think their community dogs are about to be taken away overnight,” said a Haryana animal welfare officer.
This verdict, while aimed at safeguarding public safety, has ignited a moral and political firestorm. The coming weeks will test whether authorities can implement the order without triggering the very dangers critics fear.
The post Supreme Court Verdict on Stray Dogs Spurs Criticism and Chaos appeared first on The Edge Media.
]]>