Live Updates: Supreme Court's Ruling on Presidential Deadlines for Governors - 7th Day
The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a Presidential reference case that challenges the Court's April 8 ruling on timelines for the President and Governors to decide on Bills passed by State legislatures. The case is being heard by a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar.
The central government of India, represented by President Droupadi Murmu, has made a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that Governors can withhold assent to money bills passed by a state legislature. The Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments, on the other hand, have opposed the reference, deeming it not maintainable.
The Maharashtra government also submitted on August 26 that the Governor can deny assent to money bills. The central government has supported the reference, arguing that the power of Governors and the President to act on Bills is a "high prerogative" function which cannot be bound by judicial timelines.
The case has raised constitutional concerns about the Court's interpretation of Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the powers of the President and Governors, respectively, to withhold assent to bills. The Court has expressed a doubt over its power to establish timelines for Governors and the President regarding their power to assent to bills passed by State legislatures.
During the hearing on August 28, the State of Tamil Nadu argued that allowing Governors to withhold assent on money bills passed by a State legislature would make them a "super Chief Minister" of a State. The Court, however, stated that its decision in the matter would not be influenced by the political party currently or previously in power.
The central government argues that the Court is not empowered to prescribe deadlines and that the notion of "deemed assent" in the event of delay is not contemplated by the Constitution. This argument has been echoed by the Court in its doubts over its power to establish timelines.
The case is expected to have significant implications for the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislature in India. The decision of the Supreme Court will provide clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the President and Governors in relation to bills passed by State legislatures.
Read also:
- Tobacco industry's suggested changes on a legislative modification are disregarded by health journalists
- Trump's Policies: Tariffs, AI, Surveillance, and Possible Martial Law
- Uncovering Political Ad Transparency: A Guide to Investigating opponent's Political Advertisements in the Digital Realm
- Elon Musk praises JD Vance's debate performance against Tim Walz
