The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the presidential legacy of July 22 and questioning whether the court can “store” the timelines and prescribe the manner of the behavior of the governors and the President, while dealing with state laws that have been sent to them for consent or reserved for assessment.
The Bench of the Constitution consisting of the main judge of India Br Gavai and judges Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and how Chandurkar will hear.
In general, the presidential legacy asked whether court orders could dictate how much time and how the president and governors should operate under Articles 200 (covering the process of granting the Governors’ consent to state laws), and 201 (if the governors are reserved for presidential consent) about the Constitution.
“If there is no constitutionally prescribed time limit or the way of exercise by the Governor’s powers, can the time limits and the way of exercising powers according to court orders can be set? The presidential legacy asked.
Considered consent in the case of TN
The President’s step to seek clarity according to the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction, arises from the judgment of the Supreme Court since 8 April JB Pardiwal and R. Mahadevan, in a petition filed by the Tamil government, considered to be considered by the president.
The bench with two judges decided that the Governor’s action was illegal. This led to the default cancellation of the President’s decision on consent to one of 10 accounts and at the same time refused seven. And not to consider two more.
The judgment written by the pardiwal judiciary referred to Article 142 of the Constitution to believe that all 10 accounts received their consent.
The legacy was now looking for an opinion of the court on the “outlines and scope” of Article 142.
Questions Scope of Article 142
“Can the constitutional powers of the President/Governors be replaced by court orders to deal with Articles 142? Article 142 is limited to procedural law or applies to the issuance of instructions in violation of the current or procedural provisions of the Constitution?” he asked.
The reference to indirectly questioning the validity of the “considered” consent asked whether the law of the State Legislat could “consider a valid law without the consent of the governor”.
“Are the decisions of the governor and the president under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, which is in the phase before the law in question has become the law? Is the courts to make a judicial decision on the content of the law in any way before it becomes law?” Presidential reference question.
It is reported that the “concept of the consent” of the President and Governor, established in the judgment, was a foreign constitutional system and worked on the principle of the limited power of the President and the Governors. Vice -President Jagdeep Dhankar described Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces”.
“Governor violated the Institute”
In its judgment, the pardiwala judgment explained that Article 142 was only invoked for complete justice in the public interest for the inhabitants of Tamil Nadu.
“We are not exercising ur Power Under Article 142 in A Casual Manner or Without Giving and Thought to It Its, It is only after deepest of deliberations, and HAVING REACHED AT THE FIRM CONCLUSION THAT Bills;
Questions of two judges on the bench
The presidential legacy also raised questions about two court judges showing judgments on substantive legal issues concerning the interpretation of the Constitution without referring to the minimum pentagonal bench, as stated under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution.
The legacy also affected the foundations of Article 200 and asked the court to clarify the constitutional possibilities of the governor when he was submitted by the bill pursuant to Article 200.
The judgment of 8 April clearly stated that the governor had three options in this situation: he has withdrawn, withdraws or reserved the bill for assessing the president. The court stressed that the governor could not indefinitely delay the decision on the bill because he represented the “will of people”.
The presidential legacy again asked the court whether the governor was bound to the assistance and the Council offered by the Ministers Council under Article 200. The judgment clearly stated that governors, usually, must comply with the assistance and council of the state cabinet pursuant to Article 200 in account decisions.
‘Bar To Judicial Review’
The legacy has raised doubts about whether the “constitutional discretion” of the governors and the president, according to Articles 200 and 201, was even justifiable. He claimed that there were “contradictory judgments” of the Supreme Court.
“Is Article 361 of the Constitution (Immunity given by the President and Governors of Legal Proceedings, while it is in the Office), the absolute molding for judicial review in connection with the Governor’s actions under Article 200?” He asked the presidential legacy.
The justice of Pardiwala dealt with this question and at the same time referred to the past judgments of the court. “Immunity enshrined in Article 361 of the Constitution does not exclude or prohibit the courts in any way to examine the actions of the Governor, which would include its actions under Article 200,” decided the Supreme Court in its judgment of April 8.
The presidential legacy is dated 13 May, the last working day of justice Sanjiv Khann as the main judge of India. Responsibility has now declined to the current main judge Gavai to create a bench of the Constitution to consider the presidential legacy.
Published – July 19, 2025 20:14
