top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

Congress tries a ‘third’ hand

New Delhi: The BJP latest manoeuvre in elevating Nitin Nabin as the party’s national working president has had consequences in Maharashtra’s two biggest cities - Mumbai and Pune. The result has left the Congress party in a curiously ambivalent mood: quietly pleased by the opportunities created, yet wary of the turbulence ahead. In Maharashtra, the immediate beneficiary of the BJP’s move is Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena. The BJP’s organisational signal has strengthened its hand in the forthcoming...

Congress tries a ‘third’ hand

New Delhi: The BJP latest manoeuvre in elevating Nitin Nabin as the party’s national working president has had consequences in Maharashtra’s two biggest cities - Mumbai and Pune. The result has left the Congress party in a curiously ambivalent mood: quietly pleased by the opportunities created, yet wary of the turbulence ahead. In Maharashtra, the immediate beneficiary of the BJP’s move is Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena. The BJP’s organisational signal has strengthened its hand in the forthcoming elections to the BMC, Asia’s richest civic body, and in Pune, the state’s second city. For Shinde, whose legitimacy still rests on a contentious split with the party founded by Bal Thackeray, any reinforcement from the BJP’s formidable machine is welcome. For Uddhav Thackeray, who leads the rival Shiv Sena (UBT), the message is ominous. His party, once the natural custodian of Marathi pride in Mumbai, now faces the prospect of being squeezed between a BJP-backed Sena on one side and a revived Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) led by his cousin, Raj Thackeray, on the other. Shotgun Alliance That pressure has forced Thackeray into an awkward embrace with his estranged cousin. A reunion of the Thackeray clans, long rumoured and often aborted, has unsettled Thackeray’s MVA ally - the Congress. Signals from the party’s high command suggest a calculated distancing from Shiv Sena (UBT), particularly in Mumbai, where Congress leaders are exploring arrangements with smaller parties rather than committing to a Thackeray-led front. In Pune, the party’s pragmatism is even more pronounced. Quiet efforts are under way to entice Ajit Pawar’s NCP, currently aligned with the BJP, into a tactical understanding for the civic polls. Control of the municipal corporation, even without ideological harmony, is the immediate prize. For the embattled Congress, the civic polls offer a chance to do two things at once. First, by keeping a degree of separation from the Uddhav–Raj combine, it can strengthen its own organisational sinews, which have atrophied after years of playing junior partner. Secondly, it can allow the BJP–Shinde Sena and the Thackeray cousins to polarise the Marathi vote between them, leaving Congress to position itself as a ‘third pole.’ Such a strategy is particularly tempting in Mumbai. A tie-up with outfits like Prakash Ambedkar’s Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) could help Congress consolidate minority, Dalit and tribal voters, constituencies it believes are more reliably mobilised without the ideological baggage of Thackeray’s Sena (UBT). Severing or loosening ties with Shiv Sena (UBT) would also simplify Congress’s messaging ahead of assembly elections elsewhere. In states such as West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, where polls loom next year, the party has historically preferred alliances that allow it to emphasise secular credentials and oppose the BJP without accommodating overtly Hindu nationalist partners. Mixed Signals The Congress’ internal signals, however, are mixed. When talk of a Thackeray reunion resurfaced, Maharashtra Congress leader Vijay Wadettiwar publicly welcomed it, arguing that Raj Thackeray’s limited but distinct vote share could help consolidate Marathi sentiment. Mumbai Congress chief Varsha Gaikwad was more circumspect, hinting that alliances with parties prone to street-level militancy deserved scrutiny. Wadettiwar swiftly clarified that decisions would rest with the party’s senior leadership, underscoring the centralised nature of Congress’s calculus. In Pune, meanwhile, senior leaders are reportedly engaged in discreet conversations with Ajit Pawar, whose defection from his uncle Sharad Pawar’s NCP last year still reverberates through state politics. The outline of a broader strategy is becoming visible. Congress appears content to let the BJP and Shinde’s Sena draw on non-Marathi and anti-dynasty voters, the Thackerays appeal to wounded Marathi pride while it quietly rebuilds among minorities and lower-caste groups. Mumbai Approach Mumbai’s demography lends some plausibility to this approach. Alongside its Marathi core, the city hosts millions of migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand, a constituency that has increasingly gravitated towards the BJP. Raj Thackeray’s strident rhetoric against North Indians, once electorally potent, now risks narrowing his appeal and complicating Uddhav Thackeray’s efforts to broaden his base. None of this guarantees success for Congress. Playing the ‘third pole’ is a delicate art. Yet, the Congress, struggling for survival, has few illusions about sweeping victories. Its aim, for now, is more modest – it is to survive, to remain relevant, and to exploit the cracks opened by its rivals’ rivalries. In Maharashtra’s civic chessboard, that may be advantage enough.

President should decide on bills reserved for her consideration by Guv within 3 months: SC

  • PTI
  • Apr 12
  • 4 min read

ree

New Delhi: For the first time, the Supreme Court has prescribed that the president should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.


Four days after the top court cleared 10 bills, which were stalled and reserved by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi for the president's consideration, and set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies, the judgement running into 415 pages was uploaded on the apex court's website at 10.54 pm on Friday.


"We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs... and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.


"In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State. The States are also required to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers to the queries which may be raised and consider the suggestions made by the Central government expeditiously," the top court said.


A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for the president's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law.


Without mincing words, the court said "where the Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court".


Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the governor to give assent to the bills presented to him, withhold the assent or to reserve it for the consideration of the president.


"The Bills, having been pending with the Governor for an unduly long period of time, and the Governor having acted with clear lack of bona fides in reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President, immediately after the pronouncement of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab (supra), are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were presented to him after being reconsidered.


"There is no expressly specified time-limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time-limit, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon bills which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the law-making machinery in the State," the bench said in its judgement.


Observing that the governor is required to abide by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, the top court said it is not open for the governor to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously.


"There is no expressly specified time-limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time-limit, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon bills which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the law-making machinery in the State," the bench said while directing the registry to send a copy each of this judgment to all the high courts and the principal secretaries to the governors of all states.


The apex court set timelines and said failure to comply with it would make the inaction of the governors subject to judicial review by the courts.


"In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President, upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such an action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month," the court said.


"In case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three months.


"In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months," the bench said.


In case of presentation of a bill after reconsideration, the governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month, the court said.


The bench said that the governor couldn't sit over bills and adopt the concept of "absolute veto" or "pocket veto".


"There is no 'pocket veto' or 'absolute veto' available to the President in discharge of his functions under Article 201. The use of the expression "shall declare" makes it mandatory for the President to make a choice between the two options available under the substantive part of Article 201, that is, to either grant assent or to withhold assent to a bill.


"The constitutional scheme does not, in any manner, provide that a constitutional authority can exercise its powers under the Constitution arbitrarily," the bench said.


The top court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu governor, as deemed to have been passed.


The apex court had previously framed questions to answer in a dispute between Tamil Nadu government and the governor over the delay in assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly.


The delay in giving assent by the governor prompted the state government to move the top court in 2023, claiming 12 bills, including one from 2020, were pending with him.


On November 13, 2023, the governor declared he was withholding assent to 10 bills following which the legislative assembly convened a special session and re-enacted the very same bills on November 18, 2023.


Later, some of the bills were reserved for the president's consideration.

Comments

bottom of page