The Union’s government stated that the Supreme Court cannot consider the governors to be “extraterrestrials” or “foreigners”, which the timelines can be stored and whose discretion is not counted. File | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Union’s government stated that the Supreme Court cannot consider the governors to be “extraterrestrials” or “foreigners”, which the timelines can be stored and whose discretion is not counted.
The Center stated that the governor was not merely “mail”, but on the control of “hasty legislation” by states.
The sending of the center created in a note created by the lawyer Tushar Mehta is part of the record in the presidential reference hearing scheduled before the bench of the Constitution, headed by the chief judge of India Bravai of 19 August.
The presidential legacy is based on the judgment of April 8, who declared the bench of the Supreme Court of Justices JB Pardiwal and R. Mahadevan in a petition filed by Tamil Nadu, which attacked the Governor RN Ravi’s delay in eraseing 10 crowded laws and his subsequent action for their considering the chairman.
The bench with two judges cast a three -month term about the governors of the state and the president to deal with the state accounts that were sent to them for approval or assessment. It concluded that the governors had no discretion when dealing with these accounts and were completely bound by the “help and council” of the state legislator concerned. The division’s bench even triggered Article 142 of the Constitution to “be considered consent” “delayed” state laws. The judgment of 8 April further ordered that the President must seek the Council from the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 143 (advisory jurisdiction) in the case of any law on state state laws.
Written submission Tamil Nadu, represented by the head of lawyer P. Wilson, against the fact that the presidential reference mechanism cannot be used to re -open or cancel the binding judgments of the top court itself. Questions concerning the powers of the President and Governors in terms of state laws have already been resolved by judgment 8 April. The entertainment of the legacy would now disrupt the finality of the Supreme Court’s judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution. Tamil Nadu submitted the court compulsory to answer every presidential reference to him
However, Mr. Mehta claimed that the April judgment of the Court of Justice clearly showed an exclusive president and governors on the zone.
“Governors must not be treated as an extraterrestrial/foreigner in the Union Federation units. Governors are not just ambassadors of the center. Governors have democratic legitimacy through indirect democratic representation.
The lawyer claimed that the nature of the governorate consent had a unique duality of character. Although the consent is granted by the executive body of the peak, the act itself is a legislative nature. The Supreme Court’s approach was to be more calibrated.
The legal official of the Center stated that neither Article 200 (the authority of the Governor agrees with the state accounts) nor the Article 201 (Presidential Party to consider state accounts that the governor has assessed) did not provide any specific time limit.
“The absence of any explicit time limit in Articles 200 and 201 is a deliberate and conscious constitutional election. The court direction of storing any timeline would be a change in the Constitution,” said Mr. Mehta.
The note asked whether the court could trigger Article 142 and take powers pursuant to Article 200 and 201 to provide consent of “delayed” state accounts.
“The alleged failure, inaction or error of one authority cannot and cannot the authorization of another authority to take over the powers that the Constitution did not interfere. Article 142 does not facilitate the court to create the concept of” considered consent “, thereby turning the constitutional and legislative process,” said Mr. Mehta.
He claimed that the Governor had not been excluded to perform discretion under Article 200 to grant, detained, detained, reserves the bill for considering the President, or return it to the legislative assembly, even in the absence of assistance and advice in this sense.
“And the Governor’s consent cannot be a mechanical process … There may be situations where the governor might be necessary to look independently of the ministers’ Council,” said Mr. Mehta.
In addition, the Union’s government said it would order the President to consult the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 143, in case of any doubts about state laws would effectively change the constitutional privilege for the judicial mandate.
“Absolute discretion is the president to seek advice. The term” consultation “means that the president is not obliged to do so,” Mr. Mehta said.
Published – 16 August 2025 02:48
