New Delhi: After being passed by the State Legislative Assembly, the Supreme Court, an extraordinary and earlier decision, for the 10 bills reserved by the Governor, which is reserved by the Governor, said that the 10 bills reserved by the Governor were decided in an extraordinary and earlier decision, and to work on the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and to work on the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and to work on the Governor of Tamil Nadu. To stop what happened in Tamil Nadu.
As the Constitution prohibits himself to say that the governor has to do “as soon as possible”, but does not determine any time, a governor can delay a condition, deciding on a condition, a condition to become a law to become a law. The court said that if it was to be agreed, it should be done within a month. The court set a time limit of three months in case of reconsideration or sending the President to the Legislative Assembly. If a bill is re -sent after reconsideration by the Legislative Assembly, the Governor should grant an agreement in a month. The court also said that any violation of the timeline can be challenged in the court. In the case of Tamil Nadu, a bill has been pending for more than five years.
The Constitution does not allow Guvs to exercise full veto: SC
Saying that the Governor of Tamil Nadu had worked in violation of constitutional provisions to sit on the bills, a Supreme Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadan said on Tuesday that he had shown “Skant Honor” for various decisions of the APEX court and did not work with the President for the state, because it was again on the state. It is believed that the governor has no option but to give approval after the bill is sent after the assembly is sent. The bench said that the Constitution has not allowed it to use “absolute veto” or “pocket veto”, which decides on bills indefinitely.
Reading the operative part of the verdict, Justice Pardwala, who wrote to the verdict, said that according to Article 200 of the Constitution, the governor has only three options when a bill is placed in front of them – granting, taking it back, sending it back and sending back to reconsideration, or reserving it to the President. It said that a bill can only be reserved for the President on the first example and not when it was sent after rethinking by the assembly.
“As a general rule, a bill is not open for the Governor to reserve a bill for the President, as the bill has been reserved for the President after being re -presented by the Bill after being re -passed by the Legislative Assembly. The only exception is that the bill presented in the second round is different from the first edition,” Justice Pardila said.
On the argument of the Governor of Tamil Nadu that he could agree to bills without sending back to the Legislative Assembly for reconsideration, the court said that such an option was not available under the Constitution.
After his fixed reconsideration by the State Legislature, after being in violation of the process prescribed under Article 200, preventing the consent or reservation of bills for the idea of the President, has been declared wrong in the law, thus determined on one side.
“In relation to the long -term of time, for which these bills were kept pending by the governor, before the final announcement of agreeing, and for the scante honors shown by the governor for the decision of this court by the Governor, for the scanteer honor shown by the governor, and for other entrants, which are largely involved for discharging their actions, we are not in any way to accept the bill.
