New Delhi: Observing that bills if kept pending after their passage by state legislature militate against Ruled That Neither The President Nor Governors have “unbridled Powers” and Neither of them has the power to exercise ‘Absolute veto’ on any bill passed by the association.
It said the constitutional functions have to take decisions in a time-bound manner and fixed it at three months for the president.
Clearing the constitutional Ambiguity over the role of the constitutional head of the country and those states when bills are synt for their assenth, a bench of justices jb paradiwala and ravadevan saidvan saidvan saidvan saidvan Reasoned Order and Cannot Sit Indefinite on Bills. It said delay on their part as well as decisions by them are judically reviewable and can be challenged in court.
Settling a timeline for governors, it said a decision has to be taken within a month if assent is granted or within three months if a bill is referred to the pressure. SC also accepted centers’s 2016 office memorandum fixing a timeline of three months for the president to take a decision, and made it a part of its order.
“… The Scheme under which the constitutional heads of bot the country and a state respectively are required to operate, does not contemplate the idea of an ‘absolute veto’, the therest Withholding of assent without furnishing reasons. Constitutional democracy, “SC said.
Elaborating on Article 200 (Pertaining to Governors) and Article 201 (Regarding President) of the Constitution, it said bot the functionaries are bound to give reasons in everything for everything and the state Movt Must Be prevented from incorporating the changes or amendments to the bill. Thought a Governor is bound to give assent in case the Assembly sends the bill against after reconsideration, the bench said it was not applicable to the present.
It said the president giving reasons in support of decision is of paramount importance, and the court can make a presumption that the presumption and by extection, the central govt, the century, may not have across the bone final Decision is not a reasoned one.
The bench said, “… Governor does not hold the power to exercise ‘Absolute veto’ on any bill, we see no reason why the same standard would also not apply to the pressure An exception to this default rule which permeates throughout our constitution.
Sc suggested the president invoke article 143 of the constitution to seek sc”s opinion in case a state a state bill’s constitutionality is Questioned. “… Although the option to refer a bill to this court under article 143 May Not Be Mandata, Yet the President, as a measure of prudence, OUGHT to seek an opinion under the Said Provision in Respight Been Reserved for the Consideration of the President on Grounds of Perceived Unconstitutionality. For their advice or opinion thereupon, “SC said.
(Tagstotranslate) Supreme Court RULING (T) President Powers (T) Legislature Bills Assent (T) Judicial Review of Bills (T) Governors Veto
Leave a Reply