New Delhi42 minutes ago
- Copy link
Legal experts say that the aim of the Supreme was to stop the delay in approval of the bills. Some said- the constitution does not mention the time-limit.
The law debate has started on the Supreme Court’s decision to build a deadline for the President and the Governor. Former Law Minister Ashwini Kumar said- This may create a conflict situation between the government and the courts, which is necessary to resolve. It is expected that the bench of the Supreme Court will give a clear opinion on this.
Constitutional Affairs Experts Advocate Sumit Gehlot said- In 2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs had directed the Governor to give a decision on the bill in three months. On this basis, the time limit was set on 8 April. In such a situation, the decision of the Supreme Court is not new.
Gehlot also said- Article 74 states that the President has to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers, so his independent role is limited. Under Article 143, the President can take opinion from the Supreme Court on any important legal or factual issue.
Supreme Court verdict on 8 April, after which dispute started
The Supreme Court’s decision of April 8.
Experts’ opinion on the President-Governor’s deadline dispute
- Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra- This case is not only of the time limit, but is related to the rights of the federal structure and citizens. The question is whether a Governor or President can stop the bill indefinitely. By doing this, you can obstruct the work of the government. You can deprive the public of its legislative rights.
- Advocate Ashish Dixit- The President can seek opinion from the Supreme Court on legal or public issues. The court can hear it or refuse humility. This opinion is not binding, but works for constitutional guidance.
- Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwal: The use of Article 142 can be dangerous to decide the time frame. The Supreme Court has also said in 1996 that a time limit is necessary to prevent unconstitutional delays, but the court should maintain balance.
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 …