New Delhi, April 12 (IANS) The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on the standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi has been welcomed by jurists, who dismissed allegations of ‘judicial overreach’, as the top court set a three-month deadline for assent to Bills.
Former President of Supreme Court Bar Association, Adish C. Aggarwala said, “I feel that the decision in the Tamil Nadu case under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution is not an overreach of the Supreme Court as it is based on the decision in the 2023 case of State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab.”
“Under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, no time limit is mandated for the President and the Governor to take a decision. However, in the Punjab case, a three-judge bench has prescribed a specific time for the Governor and the President to take a decision,” he added.
The judgment, given considering the unique circumstances prevailing in Tamil Nadu, ruled that the 10 bills withheld by the Governor since 2020 have now automatically become law.
“Ten Bills were passed by the State Legislature and sent to the Governor for assent. However, he sat on them for more than a year without taking any action,” said the apex court.
Aggarwala, however, said Tamil Nadu Governor should now appeal against the judgment in before a bigger bench and claim that he was not given a chance to give his assent to these Bills under the stipulate time limit.
He said, “In my opinion the Supreme Court should have first given the Governor the option to give his assent, instead of directly passing an order of deemed assent.”
Earlier another constitutional expert and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who represented the Tamil Nadu government in the case, spoke exclusively to IANS and provided detailed insights into the developments and implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.
He said that the judgment was given considering the unique circumstances prevailing in Tamil Nadu.
“Ten Bills were passed by the State Legislature and sent to the Governor for assent. However, he sat on them for more than a year without taking any action,” Dwivedi added.
During this period, a similar issue arose in Punjab, prompting the Supreme Court to clarify the interpretation of Article 200.
Dwivedi said: “The court ruled that when a Governor receives a Bill, and if they choose not to assent to it, they must return it to the Legislature with a message for reconsideration. If the Legislature passes the Bill again, then it becomes mandatory for the Governor to give assent. At that point, discretion is no longer applicable.”
Former Law Minister Kapil Sibal hailed the verdict as historic and a boon for the federal structure of the country.
Sibal said the delay in assent by Governors over Bills passed by State Legislatures has long been used as a tool of harassment by the Central government, as the Governor is an appointee of the federal government.
“The Supreme Court has ended the scope for unexplained delay and set a three-month deadline for Governors to decide,” he said, adding that the Attorney General had opposed the decision over the setting of a deadline, but the apex court dismissed the government’s contrary stand.
–IANS
rch/khz
*Except for the headings & sub-headings, this story has not been edited by The enewstime.in and has been published from IANS feed.
