New Delhi:
Only courts have privileges to provide recommendations about the constitutionality of a bill and the executive is using restraint in such cases, the Supreme Court has said that it is underlined to mention the bills with constitutional questions in the Supreme Court for the President.
In the Tamil Nadu case, important remarks have been made in the apex court verdict, in which he ruled that the decision to assure Governor RN Ravi’s 10 bills was “illegal” and “arbitrary”. Several reports now stated that the Center is planning to file a review petition for the top court’s decision, which effectively stops the President’s powers, and by expanding the Council of the Council of Ministers, which advises the President.
The Supreme Court’s decision has set a three -month time limit for the second time for the bills passed by the Legislature for the bills passed by the Legislature. The court has also said that the President’s work is responsible for judicial review under Article 201 of the Constitution.
“Whenever, in the practice of powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, a bill is reserved for the President’s view on the basis of patent unconventionalism, which is of such nature, so that the representative can cause a crisis for the principles of democracy, the President should be established as a constitution with this fact. The measurement of discretion should be measured, the President should refer to this court under the Constitution, the President should refer to this court. Says
A bench of Justice JB Pardwala and Justice R Mahadan said in its order 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 in a deer for constitutional principles.” Said.
“It is expected that the union executive 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 qualifications in telling that the hands of the executive are attached to the hands of the executive with purely legal issues and only the constitutions are added to the constitutional courts,”
The order states that an opinion provided by the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution – Article 143 gives the President the power to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court – “High motivational value” and “should usually be accepted by the legislature and executive”. “We are no strangers for arguments regarding the non-comprehensive nature of the advisory jurisdiction of this court and even though a bill can be referred to by the President in this court under Article 143, the opinion given for it cannot be taken into consideration.
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 accepts for a bill, he should record reasons and materials that do not assure,” the order states.
The Supreme Court has said that if the President does not provide the reason or if the reasons provided are inadequate, it can commit violence for the concept of “limited government”, on which our constitution has been created “. The court said, “The President provides a basis for judicial review for the work of the President and allow the courts to assess the validity of the decision as well as to ensure accountability between the three pillars of the government, which is in line with the idea of check and balance in our country’s constitutional set-up.”
