Governor of Tamil Nadu Rn Ravi. | Photo credit: S. Siva Saravanan
The deadlines of the Supreme Court so that the governors decide the fate of the bills sent to them by assent is an attempt to connect a “constitutional silence.”
The text of the Constitution does not specific time limits for governors. This had led the governors in multiple states of the opposition opposition to sit in the bills.
The situation had prevailed despite an APEX court order of November 2023 Status of Punjab versus main secretary of the governor of Punjab That “real power is granted to the elected representatives of the people in a parliamentary form of democracy. The governor, appointed by the president, is a head of the State.”
State governments such as Western Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Kerala had continued to accuse their governors of Behing as “political rivals.”
But, on April 8, a JB Pardiwala Judges and R. Mahadevan declared that any failure by the governors to fulfill their maximum time limit of three months, if they wish to retain the assent or reserve invoices for the action. With this, the sentence of April 8 has left one step away from the previous decisions of the Court that had only deceived the governors to act within a “reasonable time.”
A week before this sentence in the case of the governor of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court had made severe comments against another constitutional silence that has facilitated the speakers to delay decisions in disqualification procedures under the anti-department law.
The comments came from a bank headed by Judge Br Gavai on April 3, while reserved a ruling on the appeals that challenge the months of delay of the months shown by the president of the Telangana to decide the disqualification requests presented under the anti-debt law (tenth annex of the Constitution) against 10 BRS MLA that had changed to the Congress of the State in the State.
Specific time periods
Judge Gavai said the court would fix the “specific periods of time” for speakers, or disqualification requests can end in the “garbage dumps” and that the tensive schedule would be reduced to a mockery. The bank had referred to a 2020 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Keshab Meghacandra Singh The case in which he had said disqualification requests under the Tens schedule must be decided by speakers within three months. This has greatly followed the leg, followed by the speakers in rape so far.
The hearings in the cases of Tamil Nadu and Telangana have seen that the Supreme Court clarifies that he did not want to interfere with what the governors or speakers decide, but within what time they should. Constitutional authorities cannot take advantage of the constitutional silences to assemble the delay to frustrate the will of the people, the court had subyarders.
Published – April 10, 2025 10:19 PM IST