Supreme Court: The country’s highest court has given a sensational verdict on bills sent by governors for the President’s consideration. It has specifically directed the President to decide on bills sent by governors within three months. It has also explained that the Governor can keep bills passed by the Legislative Assembly for only one month. However, everyone is shocked as this is the first time that the Supreme Court has given a verdict setting a deadline for the President. Let us now find out about which case the Supreme Court made these comments.
The Supreme Court has given a sensational verdict on bills sent by governors for the President’s consideration. It has been said that the President should decide on the bills sent by the governors within three months. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has given a verdict setting a deadline for the President, and everyone is surprised.
Former IPS officer R.N. Ravi Kumar, who was appointed as the Governor of Tamil Nadu in 2021, has been in frequent disputes with the state government. The Stalin government accuses the governor of acting like a BJP representative and blocking bills and appointments. In particular, it has approached the court alleging that the 10 bills they sent have been kept with him for a long time. While the investigation into this has been going on for many days, the Supreme Court recently gave a shocking verdict.
The Supreme Court recently said that it was unconstitutional for the Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi Kumar, to keep 10 bills passed by the Legislative Assembly as they were, to remain in place. It explained that if a bill has to be stopped for the President’s approval on the advice of the Council of Ministers, the maximum time the Governor can take is only one month. It issued orders specifying the time limit for the Governor to take action on bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. Also suggested that if the Governor wants to stop the approval of a bill without the advice of the Council of Ministers, the bill should be sent back to the Legislative Assembly within three months.
The Supreme Court ruled that if the Governor does not comply with this deadline, the courts can also conduct a judicial review of his actions. It explained that the Governor has no discretionary powers except to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. According to Article 200 of the Constitution, the bill can be sent back to the Legislative Assembly with certain amendments. However, it made it clear that if the Legislative Assembly sends it back, the Governor must approve it. It indicated that if the Bill is considered unconstitutional and against the policies of the state, it can be sent for consideration by the President.
Also Read: Waqf Act Protest: Sparks Violence in Bengal, Rail Tracks Destroyed
Share
New US Rules for Indian H-1B Holders – Check Now
Senior Citizens Income Tax Guide: Choosing the Correct ITR Form
