New Delhi:
For the first time, the Supreme Court has determined that the President should receive that reference from that date within a period of three months to decide on bills reserved by the Governor.
The apex court, four days after the approved 10 bills, stalled and reserved for the President’s view by Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, and set a time for all governors to work on bills passed by state assemblies, uploading 415 pages on Friday at 10.54 pm on the website of the top court.
“We consider it suitable for adopting the timeline set by the Ministry of Home Affairs … and determine that the President needs to take a decision on bills reserved by the Governor, from which the date of which such a reference is obtained within a period of three months. The apex court said the suggestions made by the central government were considered.
On 8 April, a bench of Justices JB Pardwala and R Mahadevan separated the reservation of 10 bills for the idea of the President in the second round, considering it as illegal, wrong in the law.
Without reducing the words, the court said, “Where the Governor reserves a bill for the idea of the President and the President and in return will be open to the state government to accept such action at this time”.
Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the 200 governor to consent to the bills presented, prevent consent or reserve it for the President’s view.
“Bills are pending for a long period of time with the governor, and the Governor has worked with a clear decrease in burning the bills for the idea of the President, which was not told about the decision of this court in Punjab (Supra), when he was not given to Shaleen, he was not given. One of the works of the Constitution was not given by the Governor, but not a fixed time-limit 200 of the Constitution’s follow-up 200. One cannot be read in a way that allows the Governor not to take action on bills that are presented to give them consent and in this way and essentially illuminate the law making machinery in the state, “the bench said in its decision.
Given that the Governor is required to follow the assistance and advice given by the Council of Ministers, the apex court said that it is not open to reserve a bill for the President’s view to the Governor, once presented in the second round, after returning to the first house.
“Article 200 of the Constitution is not clearly specified for discharge of works by the governor under Article 200. Despite no prescribed time-limit, Article 200 cannot be read in this way, which allows the governor not to take action on bills and can delay in such a way that the principal secretary of governors of all states.
The apex court set a deadline and said that failure to comply with it would subdue the inaction of the governors to the judicial review by the courts.
The court said, “In case of the President’s assistance and advice for the President’s State Council, the bill is expected to stop or reservation, the Governor is expected to be subject to a maximum period of one month with such action,” the court said.
The bench said, “Unlike the advice of the State Council of Ministers, with a message within a maximum period of three months, the Governor will have to return to the state in case of reservation of the bill for advice of the state minister.
In the case of the presentation of a bill after reconsideration, the governor will have to give assurances under a maximum period of one month, the court said.
The bench said that the governors cannot sit on bills and adopt the concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto”.
Under Article 201, there is no ‘pocket veto’ or ‘absolute veto’ available to the President under Article 201. It is mandatory for the President to declare “Use”. It is mandatory for the President to make an option between two options available under Article 201, ie, either, or to agree to a bill.
“The constitutional plan, in any way, does not provide that a constitutional authority can use his powers arbitrarily under the Constitution,” the bench said.
The apex court used its full power under Article 142 of the Constitution, so that the Bill could be re -presented to the Governor of Tamil Nadu, as understood.
The Supreme Court had earlier questioned more questions between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Governor to answer more questions by delay in the assurance of bills passed by the Legislative Assembly.
The delay in agreeing by the Governor inspired the state government to move the apex court in 2023, claiming that 12 bills, including one from 2020, were pending with it.
On November 13, 2023, the Governor announced that he was stopping acceptance for 10 bills, after which the Legislative Assembly called a special session and re -implemented a lot of bills on November 18, 2023.
Later, some bills were reserved for the President’s view.
(Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is published by a syndicated feed.)
