During a felicitation event organized by the Tubagere Jackfruit Growers Association, the district horticulture department, and the Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Dr. Narayan Gowda, retired Vice-Chancellor of the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), presented the PPFRA certificates to the farmers on Wednesday.

Jackfruit, known for its wealth of vitamins, minerals, potassium, and dietary fiber, has long been underappreciated. It is now time to acknowledge its health benefits, commercial prospects, and ecological significance. Among the awardees was Sudha from Kachihalli, whose jackfruit trees—some over 120 years old—were recognized for their unique aroma, taste, and long shelf life. “There is high demand for our variety,” Sudha remarked, “but we need better government support to enhance our efforts.”

The patent grants her exclusive rights over this variety for 20 years, meaning only licensed entities can propagate or sell it. Krishnappa, another awardee, noted, “Our jackfruit now enjoys national recognition. This not only honors our land but also protects our variety for future generations.”

Dr. Shamalamma, a scientist from GKVK, highlighted that jackfruit is a low-input crop whose demand has surged after the development of new varieties. “A small jackfruit that once sold for ₹15–20 now fetches ₹45–50,” she added. Its low glycemic index makes it particularly suitable for diabetics. With over 1,000 tonnes of jackfruit traded annually in the taluk, Tubagere is emerging as a quiet success in agro-economics. Ravikumar, secretary of the Growers Association, emphasized the need for a dedicated market near Devanahalli airport to maximize export opportunities.

Local entrepreneurs are also transforming jackfruit into high-value products such as chips, papad, dehydrated snacks, and flour. A display of these items at the event captured significant attention, suggesting the rise of a food-processing ecosystem centered around indigenous crops. The increased marketability of jackfruit aligns with India’s growing trend of promoting “superfoods” and climate-resilient agriculture. Its nutritional profile—rich in fiber, potassium, and antioxidants—positions it as an affordable source of nutrition for both rural and urban populations.

The Tubagere jackfruit story embodies a broader evolution in Indian agriculture toward localized innovation, awareness of intellectual property, and value-chain integration. However, challenges remain. Farmers are advocating for cold storage units, processing centers, and export-oriented logistics near Bengaluru. While the PPFRA patents have empowered cultivators, sustaining this momentum requires coordinated support from state and central agencies. As jackfruit emerges from the shadows into national and international markets, it symbolizes a quiet revolution—rooted in the soil, supported by science, and nurtured by community efforts.

Tubagere’s golden fruit may very well herald a greener, healthier, and economically resilient India.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Shreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla described the police’s actions as a “gross subterfuge” aimed at facilitating the suspect’s escape.

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance report submitted in relation to its orders from the previous day. It remarked, “This FIR has been filed in a way that leaves ample opportunity for it to be challenged under the previous section 482 of Cr.P.C (section 528 BNSS), potentially leading to its quashing due to a lack of essential details regarding the actions constituting the specific offences.”

Additionally, the court stated, “This represents a significant subterfuge by the State. The FIR has been constructed in a manner that could assist Mr. Vijay Shah in having it quashed at a later date.”

This referral sets the stage for a constitutional bench to deliberate on 14 questions posed by the President concerning the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary, particularly in relation to Articles 200 and 201, which pertain to the assent process for state legislation.

The referral stems from a judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, by Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which mandated a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills sent by a Governor. Any delays beyond this would require appropriate reasons to be documented and communicated to the state government, allowing for judicial review.

The Supreme Court’s ruling specified that even in the absence of a statutory time limit, powers exercised under a statute should occur within a reasonable timeframe. It asserted that the President’s actions under Article 201 are not exempt from this legal principle.

The crux of the dispute initiated by the April 2025 ruling is that Governors should act on bills within a reasonable timeframe, even when Article 200 does not specify a deadline. The judgment established that the President has a three-month window to act on bills reserved under Article 201, failing which “deemed assent” could be interpreted, subject to judicial review.

This ruling was prompted by a petition from the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged Governor R.N. Ravi’s ongoing delays in granting assent to state legislature bills.

In her 14 questions, President Murmu queries whether judicial timelines can be enforced when the Constitution is silent, whether “deemed assent” is constitutionally valid, and whether such judicial directives infringe on the separation of powers.

The reference highlights that Articles 200 and 201 lack any time-bound mandates, and questions the legitimacy of the “deemed assent” concept within the constitutional framework.

Key inquiries raised include whether the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 is justiciable, if judicial orders can stipulate timelines for the President in the absence of such provisions in the Constitution, the permissibility of judicial review prior to a bill becoming law, and whether Article 142 can override constitutional provisions.

This advisory referral by President Murmu marks the fourth instance in the past 50 years. While such references are non-binding, they carry significant constitutional weight.

The April 8 decision elicited widespread reactions, including strong criticism from Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who argued that it signifies a troubling trend of judicial overreach into legislative and executive functions.

Opinions among legal experts are split; some view the ruling as a necessary check against gubernatorial delays, while others criticize it as an overreach into legislative and executive authority.

Following this referral, the Supreme Court is anticipated to form a Constitution Bench to explore and respond to the 14 constitutional questions posed. The outcome has the potential to redefine the dynamics of executive discretion, judicial review, and the separation of powers within India’s constitutional framework.

This development occurs amidst rising tensions between the judiciary and the executive, potentially shaping institutional boundaries for years ahead.