Case of the governor of Tamil Nadu: The Supreme Court reminded the constitutional authorities that occupy high charges that must be guided by the values of the Constitution. File | Photo credit: M. Periasamy
The Supreme Court, about midnight on Friday (April 11, 2025), published its very well-known sentence that declared the delay of the months of the governor of Tamil Nadu Rn Ravi, retaining the consent and the subsequent reservation of the 10 projects re-passed, 2023 “erroneous in law and no more the state.”
The court also put aside the consequent tasks of President Murmu on the bills as it’s not.
Read the full judge here
The Bank of Judges JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the inaction of the governor for an excessively long period of time so the bills were maintained pending by him, his final statement of retention or the sacrse together with the Sackless Court together with Sacunta Coached for adherence to the aid and advice of the councils of the State of Ministries of the State “other elevators of the state” other elevators of the state “other elevators of the state.”
“We have no other option that exerts our powers inherent under article 142 of the Constitution with the purpose of declaring these 10 bills that are considered settled on the date they were presented to the governor after being reconsidered by the state legislature, IE, on November 18, 2023,” said the court.
The judges had been pronounced in the open court on April 8, but it was not published so far.
Editorial | Legal myth: the Supreme Court and the governor of Tamil Nadu
In the sentence, the Supreme Court has argued that a reserve of a bill by a governor for the consideration of the President in reasons such as his faction of personal dissatisfaction, political convenience or other “strange or irrelevant considerations.”
The reference of a governor of a bill to the President for these reasons would be immediately responsible for the constitutional courts.
The court explained that the reservation of a bill to consider the president would only be with the principles of large democratic principles with clearly assigned reasons.
“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 is expected to make a specific and clean reference to the president who identifies the specific provisions in this regard and the consistent effect that may appear if a bill that became a law would have been allowed,” the trial was noted.
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,” said Judge Pardiwala.
The Apex court reminded the constitutional authorities that occupy high offices that must be guided by the values of the Constitution.
Also read | Invoice earrings: After the order of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka is likely to approach the Supreme Court
These values that are so appreciated by the people of India are the result of years of struggle and sacrifice of our ancestors.
“When they are called to make decisions, such authorities should not give in ephemeral political considerations, but be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution,” Judge Pardiwala wrote.
If the authorities deliberately try the constitutional mandate, they are playing with the same ideals venerated by their people on which the country has been built, the Apex covered.
“We take this opportunity to cite the final speech of Dr. Br Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, which is so relevant to her in 1949:” Because it is a Constitution, it will surely be to bathe. It can be good if those who are called to work, bite to be a good lot, “Judge Pardiwala said.
Published – April 12, 2025 01:24 am ist
