If the courts may review the Governor’s Governor’s recommendations for the President why he cannot explore the judiciary for sitting on key state accounts for years, India BR Gavai, who led the Presidential Reference bench, asked for years.
The most important presidential reference hearing
“If the discretion of the governor can be applied according to Article 356 of the Constitution, judicially reviewed, why not discretion under Article 200?” The chief judge Gavai answered the question of filing, which was made by the State of Maharashtra, represented by the leading lawyer Neera Kishan Kaul, about the “wide” discretional powers of the governors.
Article 356 of the Constitution includes circumstances leading to the President’s government in the state. The President’s decision is based on a state governor’s report on the failure of the state’s constitutional apparatus.
In its judgment on SR Bommai (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that the courts could be reviewed by the announcement of the President’s rule to ensure that it was not motivated for Malafid.
Also read | Supreme Court’s argument that the President does not have the time limit of consent
Article 200, which is the central point of the presidential legacy, deals with the authority of the Governor to solve the state accounts that were presented before him. The legacy was triggered by a judgment of 8 April about the two -way of the Supreme Court in a petition filed Tamil Nadu against his governor, who was sitting since 2020. He stated that the accounts would be considered consent if the constitutional authorities did not take measures during the specified period.
Center and States such as Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Haryan and Union Puduchherry territory that the judiciary cannot limit the president and governors to terms, support presidential legacy and states like Mahashtra.
“The division of the governor under Article 200 cannot be put into the stratjacket … The discretion of the President/Governor is not able to be judged.
“So if the governor is sitting on accounts from 2020 to 2025, the court should sit helpless,” Cji asked.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, who appeared for Maharashtra, claimed that the event of providing the governor’s consent of the law was “the culmination of the legislative procedure”.
“The Governor’s function under Article 200 is undoubtedly legislative,” Mr. Salve said. He said that the center has control of the state legislator.
In addition, the main judge quoted the words of Dr. Brus that the center and states would work in their own domains unless there was an internal emergency situation.
Mr. Kaul and Salve pointed out that Article 200 gave the Governor any assumptions to provide consent, detain or book accounts. “How is it possible to make a court decision on his bonafide,” Mr. Salve asked.
The head of lawyer Maninder Singh for Rajasthan stated that granting the consent of the bill is a full -fledged legislative act that cannot be limited to any deadlines.
The next general lawyer KM Nataraj, who appeared for Odisha and Uttar Pradesh, claimed that the president and governors had absolute functional autonomy. Mr. Nataraj said that “constitutionality” cannot be what the judges want.
Another general lawyer Vikramjit Banerjee for Goa said that the legislation process could not be completed without granting the Governor’s consent.
“The Constitution does not define” considered consent “. The judiciary cannot put himself in a legislative role,” he submitted.
It will appear for Chhattisgarh, Haryan and Puduchherry, the leaders of Malesh Jethmalani, Guru Krishhnakumar and Vinay Navare, claimed that it was “inadmissible, even disrespectful, tie the Governors for time limits” according to Article 200.
Published – August 26 2025 23:07
