The appeal of the President to article 143 also pales any detection of bias or mesh in the focus of the central government to the bills reserved under article 200, the Supreme Court said. | Photo credit: the Hindu
The Supreme Court has put the President at a deadline of three months to decide whether or not to consent to the bills that referred to it by a governor. The clock would begin to mark from the day the governor sent the bill to the President for consideration.
“In the case of any delay beyond this period, the appropriate reasons would have to be registered and transmitted to the State in question,” said the Apex court in a sentence of April 8. The states, in turn, must cooperate with any consultation or suggestion of the center on the invoices.
Editorial | Legal myth: the Supreme Court and the governor of Tamil Nadu
A JB Bank JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan declared that the president should, as a measure of prudence, see the Council of the Supreme Court on invoices reserved by a governor for consideration for reasons of perception.
The sentence of 414 pages authorized by Judge Pardiwala said that the need to consult the Supreme Court on bills referring to it was necessary by the governor, since there was no mechanism in the court at the state level advice to the bills.
Also read | The Supreme Court asks the governor of Tamil Nadu why he did not let the State know his objections in the bills
“We are of the consequent opinion that all the option of sending a bill to the Supreme Court under article 143 [of the Constitution] It may not be mandatory, however, the President, as a measure of prudence, must seek an opinion regarding the bills reserved for the president’s consideration for reasons of perceived unconstitutionality. This is even more necessary, since there is no mechanism at the state level so that the governor refers to the constitutional courts to obtain his council or opinion, “the sentence observed.
The judges was based on a writing request presented by Tamil Nadu against his governor Rn Ravi. The Court has had the decision of the governor of Tamil Nadu to reserve 10 bills to the President for his consideration after sitting on them for months “erroneous in the law.”
Also read | The Government of Tamil Nadu notifies 10 acts, after the verdict of the Supreme Court
The appeal of the President to article 143 also pales the bias of bias or mesh in the focus of the central government to the bills reserved under article 200, the court reasoned.
In this context, Judge Pardiwala caught attention to the neighboring island nation of Sri Lanka, where the president sent the bills to the Supreme Court for his opinion. “If the governor believes that a statute promulgated by a provincial council is unconstitutional, then he can refer to the President that he is in turn obliged to make a reference to the supreme tanning on the constituent that is pronouncing a realization of a realization of the court of the court of the court of the Coronta de the Coronta of ensuring that he is at the height of the constraints. The governor is obliged to grant assent,” justice Pardiwala.
Also read | The Supreme Court prescribes time limits for governors to act on bills
Constitutional courts cannot prevent them from making suggestions or opinion on the constitutional validity of a bill before it became law. The application of the judicial mind to a law proposes saves time and public resources by preventing expensive litigation and delay that naturally follows if a project of defective law becomes a law. In addition, the legislature would have a second chance to review the bill to take appropriate corrective measures.
However, the Court warned, this “prevention approach before the cure” should not extend to the extent that the reserve process of a bill for the president’s consideration by ITELF becomes an appeal to frustrate the legislative powers of the states.
Published – April 12, 2025 01:56 PM IST
