The conflict of the Legislature-Executive Vs. Judicator in India is no longer taking the name of the decrease, because the Supreme Court has objected to the court’s decision by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar at first, while the Supreme Court has objected to the court’s decision, now the Supreme Court has also raised the answer to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court should be given. Explain that on the deadline being fixed, the President has raised the question and said in two words that there is no such provision in the Constitution! Therefore, the question is that when there is no provision, then how did such a big judicial excesses come to light, which caused earthquake in the executive and legislature of India.
Explain that President Draupadi Murmu has raised a highly policy question on the order of the Supreme Court on 8 April 2025 last. Because the Supreme Court ordered the Tamil Nadu Government vs. Governor case that the governors and the President would have to take a decision on the bills presented before them in a fixed time. Remind that there was a lot of uproar over this decision of the Supreme Court, which is still going on as a departmental cold war. The result of this is that now the President has objected to this and has clearly stated that when there is no such provision in the constitution of the country, then on what basis the Supreme Court can give this decision.
Also read this: 14 questions of Murmu on creating a deadline for Governor-President, said- no such provision in the Constitution
It is noteworthy that the President has sought clarification from the Supreme Court on topics like the powers of the Governor, judicial intervention and time limit. Because the Supreme Court had clearly stated in its judgment in the Tamil Nadu Government vs. Governor case that the Governor has no veto power. The President will have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within three months. If the decision is not taken within the stipulated time, then the President will have to give the state a reasonable reason. Not only this, the Supreme Court had also said in its judgment that the President can send a bill back to the state assembly for reconsideration. On the other hand, if the assembly passes that bill again, the President will have to take a final decision on it.
The Supreme Court had also said that the President’s decision under Article 201 can be judged. If the Governor has taken a decision against the advice of the Council of Ministers, then the Supreme Court will have the right to legally investigate that bill. This is the reason why President Mrs. Murmu has asked 14 questions to the Supreme Court, which is as follows- First, if a bill is introduced before the Governor, then what are the options they have under Article 200 of the Constitution? Second, are the governors tied with the advice of the Council of Ministers while considering these options?
Third, can there be a judicial review of the decision taken by the Governor under Article 200? Fourth, can Article 361 completely stop judicial review on decisions taken under Article 200 by the Governor? Fifth, can the courts set the deadline for the decisions taken by the Governor under Article 200, while no such deadline has been set in the Constitution? Sixth, can the decision taken by the President under Article 201 be reviewed? The seventh, can the courts set a deadline for the President’s decision to decide under Article 201?
Eighth, if the Governor has reserved the bill for the decision, should the Supreme Court consult the Supreme Court under Article 143? The ninth, can the decisions taken by the Governor and the President to hear the decisions taken under Articles 200 and 201 respectively before the courts are implemented. Dasam, can the Supreme Court Article 142 change the constitutional powers of the President and the Governor? Eleven, can the state government implement law without the approval of the Governor under Article 200?
Twelve, can a bench of the Supreme Court decide to send matters related to the interpretation of the Constitution to the bench of five judges of the Supreme Court under Article 145 (3)? Thirteen, can the Supreme Court give such instructions/orders that do not match the Constitution or the current laws? Fourteen, whether the constitution under Article 131 allows that only the Supreme Court can resolve the dispute between the central and the state government?
Actually, these are such questions that the Supreme Court will have to do a lot of totals in answering. Because these questions must have been prepared by the same bureaucracy, whose indirect screws have been feeling the court itself and many times they are unable to hide their splash to get out of it. Therefore, both citizens and the government are waiting for the Supreme answer, so that another ‘legal post -mortem’ can be done. Therefore, it is arising in the minds of the people that will any common solution be able to get out of the President’s body on the bath of the Supreme Court?
– Kamlesh Pandey,
Senior journalist and political analyst