In the first case, the Supreme Indian court allowed court intervention if governors delay consent to legislative laws for a longer period of time. The top court bench, including the judges JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, noted that the president must take decisions on the accounts that the governors recommended. The judgment of April 8 was made in response to the government of Tamil Nadu versus the governor. According to the Hindu report report, MHA is likely to be a proposal to check against the SC judgment.
The Supreme Court’s bench said: “… Governor does not hold the power to exercise” absolute veto “for any bill of law, we do not see any reason why the same standard would not apply to the President pursuant to Article 201. It cannot be said that they remain in one of these constitutional positions. ”
Also read | PM Modi ridicules Stalin in the middle of the Hinde series: “Not even the letters I receive are not signed in Tamil”
The Supreme Court issued a judgment in response to November 2023 submitted by the Tamil Government against the Governor of the State to indefinitely detention of ten bills passed by the State Assembly, some already in 2020.
Let’s look in detail
SC sets a deadline for the president, a governor to grant the law of the law
The judgment of the Supreme Court, which resolved the dispute between Governor Tamil Nadu RN Ravi and the ruling DMK government on accounts-sets a specific time framework for the President and Governor to act in such cases.
SC prescribed a three -month time plan for the president to decide the accounts the governor said.
The Supreme Court appealed to Article 143, remarking that the Indian president should seek an opinion of the peak.
“It is expected that the Executive Director of the Union should not take over the role of courts in determining the bills of law and should, as a matter of practice, to file this question to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 143,” SC noted.
“We have no reservations when we state that the hands of the executives are associated with purely legal issues in the bill and only the constitutional courts are to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of the bill.” SC the bench added.
Also read | Cm Stalin vs guv ravi: line “missing” from the anthem TN that triggered a series
What is Article 143?
Article 143 of the Indian Constitution provides the Indian President to find advisory opinions from the Supreme Court on legal matters or facts that are of significant public importance. According to the point (1), the President may refer these questions to the Supreme Court, which may provide his opinion after the necessary hearing. In addition, the provisions (2) allow the President to refer to disputes pursuant to Article 131 according to the court’s opinion. However, the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 143 is discretion, which means that in some cases it may decide not to provide an opinion.
The Top Court also noted that it is not compulsory for the government to accept its opinion.
“We are considered to have a view that although the possibility to assign the bill to this court under Article 143 may not be compulsory, but the President, as a degree of caution, should seek an opinion according to that provision on the bill reserved for the assessment of the President due to perceived inconvenience.”
Also read | ‘Stronger together’: pm modi hails bjp, AIADMK Alliance in Tamil Nadu
MHA is likely to succeed in a proposal to check
The Ministry of the Interior of the Union (MHA) is likely to be a proposal to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of April 8, which will allow judicial intervention if the governors detain the legislative laws for too long.
Tamil over Govt vs Governor
The dispute between the main Minister Tamil Nadu MK Stalin and the governor of RN Ravi over state accounts culminated in the judgment of the Historical Supreme Court. The governor detained his consent to the ten accounts approved by the Tamil Assembly in 2020, returned them twice, and later referred to the President to assess.
The Supreme Court hit and ruled that Governor Tamil’s steps were “wrong and unlawful” because he could not reserve the accounts for the assessment of the President after the first rejected the consent and the accounts were handed over by the assembly.
The court ordered that the bills be considered the laws from the date when they were re -presented on the governor, and effectively bypassed the need for their consent or the president.
The SC decision was described as a “historical victory” for state governments.
(Tagstotranslate) Supreme Court
