Michael O’Neil, in an in-depth exchange, explained why viewing Maduro as a sitting president misses the mark. Washington sees him as a indicted kingpin of Cartel de los Soles, accused since 2020 of spearheading massive drug smuggling and terror ties that hit US shores hard. Federal prosecutors in New York’s Southern District are gearing up for his trial, backed by unanimous US policy across administrations.

Constitutionally, presidents wield Article II powers to enforce laws rigorously. Post-indictment, arrest becomes mandatory. O’Neil pointed to historical parallels, like Noriega’s 1989 takedown and subsequent upheld sentencing, proving courts honor executive foreign policy calls on leader legitimacy.

Head immunity arguments? Unlikely to fly without proven recognition, which Maduro lacks. Judges typically side with government stances here. Military aid in the raid? Justified for protection amid dangers. Looking ahead, expect a marathon legal battle: pretrial motions, full trial, appeals spanning years. Yet O’Neil is clear—the core issue is applying US criminal law to a serious offender, where the government’s case shines.

The Supreme Court had reserved its interim order on May 22. A bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai heard arguments from the petitioners and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the central government over three consecutive days before reserving the interim order.

According to the Supreme Court’s schedule for September 15, a decision will be announced on this matter on Monday. Petitioners contesting the Waqf (Amendment) Act argue that the amended law grants excessively broad authority regarding the removal of properties from Waqf. They also raise concerns about the composition of the State Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council, stating that membership should be limited to Muslims, excluding ex-officio positions.

Another point of contention involves the district collector’s power to alter property status. The law stipulates that if a district collector determines, after investigation, that a Waqf property is actually government land, it will lose its Waqf identity. Petitioners have also objected to this provision.

The central government maintains that Waqf is a secular concept and that the amended law should be considered constitutional. The government argues that, although Waqf is rooted in Islamic tradition, it is not an essential part of religion and therefore should not be viewed as a religious right.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, asserted that the law deviates from historical and constitutional principles and aims to seize Waqf through non-judicial processes. Furthermore, on April 25, the Ministry of Minority Affairs filed a 1,332-page preliminary affidavit opposing any blanket stay on the law.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was notified on April 8, following approval from President Droupadi Murmu on April 5. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha approved the Act on April 3 and April 4, respectively. Following the Act’s approval by Parliament, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court bench conducted hearings for three consecutive days before reserving its interim order, listening to arguments from lawyers challenging the amended Waqf law and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, spokesperson for the AIMPLB, expressed optimism regarding the court’s interim decision, stating hopes for relief on issues such as the removal of Waqf by user and the appointment of non-Muslims in the Waqf Council. Stay has been sought on the Law of Limitation and on the UMEED portal. History is also sought on several other issues. He anticipates that the court will grant relief.

On the 10th day of the Supreme Court proceedings, the central government presented its arguments on the governor’s powers regarding bills, stating that governors can withhold unconstitutional bills and send them back for reconsideration. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, refuting the arguments of the Punjab government, clarified that the governor has discretionary powers beyond just giving assent to a bill.

The central government clarified how governors order reconsideration. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that when returning a bill for reconsideration, the governor also makes a formal declaration not to give assent. The governor’s message, sent with a bill returned under Article 200, Clause 1, will determine the scope of reconsideration.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also clarified that the original bill number will remain the same for bills reconsidered and returned to the governor for approval in the same year. However, if the legislature reconsiders the bill the following year, the bill number will be different.

The central government refuted the Punjab government’s argument. The central government stated that the governor has no discretion beyond declaring a bill invalid. SG refuted the argument of Punjab government’s lawyer, Arvind Datar. He said that even if a bill is invalid, the governor has no discretion other than to approve it. The SG presented some examples.

The central government told the court that the governor can block bills that are clearly unconstitutional. SG Tushar Mehta, representing the center, told the SC that while interpreting constitutional provisions under sections 200 and 201, the court should consider the extreme and dangerous situations that could arise in the future of the nation. Therefore, the court should adopt a cautious approach.

Governors are considered part of the legislature – the center. The claim by opposition states that the powers of consent are executive in nature is fundamentally incorrect. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further stated that the governor’s consent is part of the legislative process. Consent is semi-legislative or self-specific in nature.

The claim by opposition states that the powers of consent are executive in nature is fundamentally wrong. However, the executive can assist in the creation of a bill, which can be presented before the legislature. Once the process is complete, the process is legislative in nature until consent is granted. This is why the governor is considered a part of the legislature.

What did the Chief Justice say about the whole matter? Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai said that when the constitution makers were considering the position of governors, it was hoped that it would be a harmonious existence. CJI B.R. Gavai added that the provincial governments (now states) were usually involved when appointing governors.

What exactly is a Presidential Reference? The Indian Constitution gives the President several powers, including the ability to directly order state governments and the central government, apart from the Supreme Court. Article 143 of the Constitution addresses Presidential References. It is completely different from the normal process. If the President feels that an issue is legally or publicly necessary, the President may seek advice from the Supreme Court on any law or constitutional issue.

On April 8, the Supreme Court, while delivering its verdict on the Tamil Nadu governor case, had said that the governor could not withhold bills indefinitely. Following this, the President ordered a Presidential Reference.