New DelhiA few moments ago
- Copy link
President Murmu questioned the Supreme Court’s decision on 14 April. – File photo
President Draupadi Murmu has raised questions about fixing the deadline for the President and the Governor. President Murmu asked that there is no such system in the Constitution, so how the Supreme Court can decide for the President-Governor to decide the deadline for approval on the bills.
Murmu has asked 14 questions to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Murmu has sought clarification on the powers of the President and the Governor, judicial intervention and time-limit.
The matter was raised from the dispute between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the State Government. Where the state government bills were stopped from the governor. The Supreme Court on 8 April ordered that the Governor has no veto power. It was said in this decision that the President will have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within 3 months. The order came to light on 11 April.
Supreme Court verdict on 8 April
The Supreme Court’s decision of April 8.
14 questions from President Murmu’s Supreme Court
- When a bill comes before the governor, what constitutional options they have.
- Are the Governors tied with the advice of the Council of Ministers while taking the decision.
- Can the Governor’s decision be challenged in court.
- Can Article 361 completely stop the judicial review on the Governor’s decisions.
- If there is no deadline for the Governor in the Constitution, can the court decide any deadline.
- Can the President’s decision be challenged in court.
- Can the court set a deadline even on the decisions of the President.
- Is it mandatory for the President to take opinion from the Supreme Court.
- Can the court hear before the law is implemented on the decisions of the President and the Governor.
- Can the Supreme Court use Article 142 to change the decisions of the President or Governor.
- Does the law passed by the state assembly apply without the approval of the Governor.
- Is it mandatory to send matters related to the interpretation of the Constitution to a bench of five judges of the Supreme Court.
- Can the Supreme Court give such instructions/orders that do not match the Constitution or the current laws.
- Can only the Supreme Court resolve the dispute between the central and the state government.
4 points of Supreme Court on the bill sent by the Governor to the President
1. Bill must decide: The Supreme Court had said that Article 201 says that when the assembly passes a bill. He should be sent to the Governor and the governor should send him to the President for consideration. In this situation, the President will have to approve the bill or tell that they are not giving approval.
2. Judicial review will be: The Supreme Court had said that the decision of the President under Article 201 could be judged. If the decision of the central government is given priority in the bill, the court will review the bill on the basis of arbitrariness or malicious.
The court said that the state’s cabinet has been given priority in the bill and if the Governor has decided contrary to the assistance and advice of the Council of Ministers, the court will have the right to legally investigate the bill.
3. The state government will have to give the reasons to the Governor: The Supreme Court clarified that when a time-limit is fixed, a decision should be taken within a reasonable time line. It will be mandatory for the President to take a decision within 3 months of receiving the bill. If there is a delay, the reasons for the delay have to be mentioned.
4. Bills cannot be sent back again and again: The court said that the President sends a bill back to the state assembly for amendment or reconsideration. If the assembly passes it again, the President will have to take the final decision on that bill and stop the process of returning the bill again and again.
What has happened on the dispute so far…
17 April: Dhankhar said- courts cannot order the President
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar was addressing a group of Rajya Sabha intern on 17 April. During this time, he objected to the advice of the Supreme Court, in which the President and the governors had set a deadline for approving the bills.
Dhankhar had said- “The courts cannot order the President. The special rights under Article 142 of the Constitution have become 24×7 available nuclear missile against democratic powers. Judges are acting as a super parliamentary.” Read full news …
April 18: Sibal said- President nominal head in India
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said that when the executive does not work, the judiciary will have to intervene. The President is the head of the nominal head in India. The President-Governor has to work on the advice of governments. I am surprised to hear the Vice President, I am also sad. They should not talk to any party.
Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court on 24 June 1975, Sibal said- ‘People will remember when the decision on Indira Gandhi’s election came, only one judge, Justice Krishna Iyer ruled. At that time Indira had to lose Sansadi. Then Dhankhar ji approved this. But now the decision of the two -judge bench against the government is being questioned. Read full news …
8 April: Controversy started with this decision of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court had set the limit of the authority of the Governor in the case of the Tamil Nadu Governor and the State Government on 8 April. The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan had said, “The Governor has no veto power.” The Supreme Court also termed the government’s 10 essential bills being stopped by the Governor as illegal.
During this decision, the court also clarified the situation on the bill sent by the Governors to the President. The Supreme Court had said that the President would have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within 3 months. The order was made public on 11 April. Read full news …