The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will likely file a petition with the Supreme Court after the April 8 ruling that compromised the President라이브 바카라 absolute veto powers under Article 201 of the Indian Constitution, PTI reported.
The centre라이브 바카라 attempt came after the apex court ruled that Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold assent for key bills was "illegal" and "arbitrary." Following this it was made public on Friday that the President now has a time frame of three months to refer to the bills sent by the state governors.
The petition is being readied, setting the deadline timelines for President and state Governors, according to an unnamed official quoted by The Hindu.
The court ruled that "The President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received."
What was the Tamil Nadu ruling about?
The ruling was for a November 2023 petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against its Governor RN Ravi라이브 바카라 decision to withhold assent to 10 pending bills dating back to 2020.
The bench said that the Governor does not have the power to reserve bills for the President's assent after the bills have been presented in the state assembly twice.
The judgement by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said that in case of a delay beyond three months by the President, the concerned states could approach the court unless the concerned reasons for the delay are relayed to the state.
"While in the preceding paragraphs we have elaborated that the 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 President under Article 201 as well,” the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala said.
It continued to say, “the President is not an exception to this default rule which permeates throughout our Constitution. Such unbridled powers cannot be said to remain in either of these constitutional posts," as per Live Law.
What is the centre looking to review?
According to the Attorney General Venkataramani - who represented TN라이브 바카라 Governor - the President was not given an opportunity to present her case, he told The Indian Express. Furthermore, the centre's concerns also remained unmet. “The judgement paves the way for restoring a ‘lapsed’ Bill. Per the Constitution, once the Bill has been returned, or assent to it withheld by the President, the legislation lapses. It has to be reintroduced in the Assembly for passage, with the amendments suggested or without, as desired by the Assembly. The April 8 judgement does not consider this ground,” another official told The Hindu.
The judgement cited a 2016 office memorandum by the MHA saying “clear that a timeline of three months has been prescribed for the decision on bills reserved for the President,” according to media reports.
Moreover, the court ruled that, as a measure of prudence, the President should consult the Supreme Court for bills reserved by the Governor for her consideration.
“This is all the more necessary as there is no mechanism at the State level for the Governor to refer Bills to the constitutional courts for their advice or opinion thereupon,” the judgment said.
