The first Memorandum of the Office of 4 February 2016, reproduced on the Supreme Court judgment on April 8, 2025, emphasized the “disproportionate delay” caused by the final decision on state accounts despite clear instructions.
Through the funds of the presidential legacy, the Center challenged the Supreme Court’s decision on Governor Tamil Nadu “impose” a three -month time plan for the President to decide on the state legislation reserved for assessment pursuant to Article 201 of the Governor.
The reference wants the Supreme Court to answer whether the time plan could be imposed through the court order by the President when the Constitution did not prescribe under Article 201.
However, the Supreme Court judgment 8. April 2025 explained that he only received instructions issued by the Ministry of the Interior (MHA) through two Memorandums with Offices (OM), which were issued in 2016, which set a three -month time plan for the President.
“We consider it appropriate to accept the time plan prescribed by the Ministry of the Interior in the above instructions and prescribe that the President is obliged to take decisions on the proposals reserved for his assessment by the governor in the period of three months from the date on which such legacy is received,”
The recommendations of Sarkaria and Punchhi commissions and instructions framed by the Central Government together demanded the effectiveness to liquidate the references of the Governors on the President under Article 201.
The first OM of February 4, 2016, reproduced on the judgment website, emphasized the “disproportionate delay” caused by the final decision on state accounts despite clear instructions.
“The time limit of a maximum of three months is strictly followed to complete the accounts after their adoption from the governments of the state,” said OM.
“The above -mentioned memorandum suggests that the procedure relating to the president has made the Governor of the President …” explained the judgment.
The court described in detail that MHA, as a ministry of nodes, will refer the essential issues concerning the state bill to the relevant ministry on Wednesday. Problems concerning the language of the law, proposal or constitutional validity would be referred to the Ministry of Trade Law. The Ministry, which concerns the essential questions, must report to MHA within 15 days. If there has been a delay, the ministry concerned must assign reasons. Any failure to do so during the maximum period of the month would be understood that it had no comments that could offer.
“The research explains that the time curriculum for three months was prescribed for decisions on the accounts of the reserved president. A period of three weeks was set for the liquidation of an urgent nature,” Pardiwala interpreted.
The second OM, also issued on February 4, 2016, stated that objections, if the Ministry concerned with the substantive issues concerning the state bill, must be shared by the state government of its views or further clarification.
“This is done with the aim of approving the Central Ministry of Claiming the State Government in this matter. For this, a time limit of one month was set,” the judgment said.
The state government had to cooperate with the monthly timeline, the court said, because the delay should “ripple” the postponement of the center in this matter.
The Idea of Imposing Timelines on the Various Stakeholders Would Not Be Antithetical or Alien to the Procedure That Surrounds of the Discharge of Constitutional Functions Under Article 201. WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE SUBSTANCE AND SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 201 CAN BE Allowed to Command Any Procedure Between the Union and the States of Its The existence and Acceptance Reveals that of the requirement of accelerated or even strict time -bound events would be in accordance with the objective and the subject of Article 201.
Published – May 16, 2025 22:04
