New Delhi:
A month after the Supreme Court’s historic verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, which effectively set a time limit for the President and the Governors to clean the bills passed by the Legislature, President Draopadi Murmu wrote to the apex court and asked if the governors could be imposed.
President Murmu has sought the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to consult the court on legal issues or matters of public importance.
“Has the Governor assisted and advised by assistance and advice by the Council of Ministers, using all the options available with him when a bill was presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?” The President asked the Supreme Court.
President Murmu asked whether the Governor’s practice of constitutional discretion of the Governor is justified – under the trial in court. He cited Article 361 of the Constitution, stating that the President or Governor would not be accountable to any court for the practice of the powers and duties of the post.
“In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time -outline and method of practice of powers by the President, can the deadline be imposed and the method of exercise through judicial orders for the practice of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is determined?” President Murmu asked the Supreme Court, seeking his opinion on the matter.
In April, a bench of Justice JB Pardwala and Justice R Mahadan used special powers of the court to solve the bills on the bills that stopped between Tamil and Governor RN Ravi. The court said that the Governor’s refusal to approve 10 bills was “illegal and arbitrary” and set a three -month deadline for the President and Governors to clean the bills passed by the Legislature for the second time.
The judgment also states that the President should consult the courts on constitutional matters.
The bench said that if the matter is related to policies, the Supreme Court may refuse to express its advisory opinion. “In matters related to purely political views, the practice of a self-laughable restraint by the court is in line with the principle of political thicken, that is, the courts do not enter into the areas of governance in which the Constitution gives a completely a privilege to the executive.”
“However, in some extraordinary circumstances, the Governor may reserve a bill to consider the President on the basis that the bill is dangerous for the principles of democracy and an interpretation of the constitution is necessary to find out whether such a law should be accepted or not. In cases where a bill is not given to the constitution for the constitution.”
“It is expected that the executive of the Sangh should not accept the role of courts in determining the virus of a bill and as a practice case, refer to such questions in the Supreme Court under Article 143. We have no qualification to tell that the hands of the executive are attached to the hands of the executive with purely legal issues and only the constitution courts are required,”
The order underlined that the court is aware of the “non-comprehensive nature” of its advisory jurisdiction. “However, only because the jurisdiction under Article 143 is not binding, does not reduce the principles used by this court to determine the constitutionality of the bill,” it said.
The order states that the “only cause” for which the legislative or executive wing cannot pay attention to the opinion of the Supreme Court “is that on the basis of which a state bill was reserved for the idea of the President is not purely legal, but some of the policy views, which can overtake the issue of constitutionalism”. “In such cases, if the President acts contrary to the advice of this court and approves for a bill, they should record reasons and materials that do not assure,” the order said.
It is now a privilege of the Supreme Court whether it establishes a constitution bench to look into the issue raised by the President or repeat the decision of the two prior judges. It comes at a time when the apex court has found a new head in the Chief Justice of India, Bra Gawai, who took the oath yesterday.
