The Supreme Court asked if the Tamil Nadu Governor can hold onto Bills from the Assembly without sharing his views on their constitutionality. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan suggested the court might examine the Bills’ compatibility with the Constitution if the President rejects them for being unconstitutional. The Bench led by Justice Pardiwala inquired if the Governor should promptly return Bills that conflict with the Constitution to the Assembly.
The apex court stated that if the Governor finds any issues with a Bill, they should promptly inform the state government. The court also emphasized that the Governor returning Bills could have led to reconsideration by the Assembly. The Tamil Nadu government, in a writ petition under Article 32, argued that the Governor is acting as a political rival. This claim arose as the Governor sent back 10 Bills out of 12 pending for his approval after a notice from the Supreme Court.
As per Article 200, if a Bill is passed again, with or without changes, the Governor must approve it. The Tamil Nadu Assembly re-adopted 10 Bills in a special session, which had been sent back by the Governor for review, and these Bills were then referred to the President.
Last November, the top court questioned Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in approving Bills passed by the state legislature. The SC raised concerns as 10 out of 12 Bills were returned. These Bills had been pending since January 2020, prompting the court to question why the Governor waited three years and only acted after court notice, asking why he didn’t take action sooner without parties approaching the Supreme Court.
Sources News From Various Digital Platforms, Websites, Journalists, And Agencies.
Leave a Reply