The Supreme Court was interpreting article 200, which addresses the role of the governor by providing the bills. File | Photo credit: Aman Raj
The Supreme Court has argued that the reservation of a state law by a governor for the consideration of the president in reasons such as his personal dissitia, political convenience or any other “strange or irelevant consideration” is strictly.
The reference of a governor of a bill to the President for these reasons would be immediately responsible for the constitutional courts.
The Court was interpreting article 200, which addresses the role of the governor by assent to the bills.
News analysis: The Supreme Court Judgment on Tamil Governor Nadu addresses a constitutional silence
The Judgment, Uploaded online Close to Midnight on April 12, declared tamil nadu governor rn ravi’s prolonged inaction on 10 crucial state bills, withholding of consent on them and the subsequent reservation of the re-passed bils to president drug 2013, Droupadi, Droupadi, Droupadi, Droupadi, Droupadi, Dropepadi, Dropepadi, Druguadi, Druguadi, Droupedi, Druguadi, Dropepadi, Dropepadi, Dropepadi, Dropepadi, Druguadi, Dropepadi in drug DRUPAUPADI. and it’s not“
A bank headed by Judge JB Pardiwala explained that the reservation of a bill to consider the president would only be with the principles of democratic principles with clearly assigned reasons, the court said.
“When the reserve of a bill by the governor for the president’s consideration is due to the danger of democracy or democratic principles or other exceptional reasons, then the governor would be expected to make a specific and clean reference to the President to identify the specific provisions in this regard and the consistent effect that may appear if such bill was allowed to become a law”, the trial court.
The governor, while making such a reference, must also indicate his subjective satisfaction on why the aforementioned consequences that may occur cannot be reduced or contained by resorting to the constitutional courses of the country.
State governments may challenge such reservation for the failure by the governor to provide the necessary reasons. They can argue that the reasons indicated by the Government in question were totally irrelevant, maledd, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by strange considerations. The issue would be “totally justicable” by the constitutional courts.
The state government can address the competent court with a court order of Mandamus if a governor sits in a bill for a period that excites the time limit of three months. The State can seek an expedited decision on the bill through the courts provided that the governor cannot provide sufficient explanation for his delay.
“When the governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the president and the president, in turn, he retains the consent of the same, then he will be open to the State Government to assault said action before the Supreme Court,” Judge Pardiwala has.
Published – April 12, 2025 05:17 pm ist