<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Following the judgment, questions have been raised on the legality of a time limit under Article 200. The Court has clarified it in the judgment \u2014 it has stated that it is guided by the inherent expedient nature of the procedure prescribed under Article 200 and the well-settled legal principle that where no time limit for the exercise of a power is prescribed, it should be exercised within a reasonable period. The Court has viewed the deliberate inaction on the part of the Governor in assenting to the Bills or reserving them for the consideration of the President as a serious threat to the federal polity.
<\/p>\n
The second point relates to the question of discretion of the Governor in withholding assent or reserving the Bill for the consideration of the President.
<\/p>\n
The Court has taken the position that the Governor can take either action only on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The judgment says that when the Governor withholds assent, he has to send the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration and when the Assembly sends the Bill back to the Governor with or without the amendments suggested by him, the Governor has to give assent.
<\/p>\n
But there is a problem with this proposition. For example, what is the occasion when the government has to advise the Governor to withhold assent and send the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration? When the legislature can send back the Bill after reconsideration without accepting any of the amendments suggested by the Governor, how can it be then said that the Council of Ministers have advised the Governor to propose amendments to the legislature when the government commands a majority there? In fact, on the question of discretion, the Court has not been consistent as different Benches have given different opinions thereon.
<\/p>\n
Constitutional heads and judicial review
<\/h4>\n The third, and most crucial, point is about judicial review of the decision of the Governor and the President. The basic proposition laid down by the Court after reviewing a catena of cases is that \u201cno exercise of power under the constitution is beyond the pale of judicial review\u201d. So, it has held that there is no reason to exclude the discharge of functions by the Governor or the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, from judicial review.
<\/p>\n
The judgment has been assailed by the Kerala Governor who has said that this is a case of judicial overreach and that it is the job of Parliament, and not the Court, to amend the Constitution. While it is true that Parliament alone has the right to amend the Constitution, it is the job of the judiciary to explain and interpret the constitutional provisions. Another issue that has been raised by a section of lawyers is that the issues decided by Justice Pardiwala\u2019s Bench can be decided only by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). In fact, the Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) decides substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
<\/p>\n
Closer scrutiny would reveal that none of these points comes under the category of substantial question of law within the meaning of that Article. As a matter of fact, the Court has only brought out the inherent meaning and amplified the dimensions of it in Articles 200 and 201 with the objective of preventing the subversion of the constitutional order. By doing so, the Court has restored sanity to the constitutional system which had come under severe strain due to plain arbitrariness and deliberate inaction on the part of constitutional authorities.
<\/p>\n
Decades ago, India had seen the unedifying spectacle of a President sitting on the postal Bill for years, with a helpless Union government unable to do anything. This underscores the need to make suitable changes in the relevant provisions of the Constitution relating to the issue of assent to Bills, whether they are passed by Parliament or a State legislature. The cue must be from this judgment. Therein lies the importance of this judgment.
<\/p>\n
P.D.T. Achary is former Secretary General, Lok Sabha<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n\n
Published – April 19, 2025 12:16 am IST<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u2018The judgment of the Supreme Court of India can be called a landmark one\u2019 | Photo Credit: AP The judgment of the Supreme Court of India, on April 8, 2025, namely, The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamilnadu and Anr., can be called a landmark one as it has brought greater clarity […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":245490,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[772],"tags":[197649,197651,197646,197656,197647,197644,197657,197648,197654,197655,197650,197652,197645,197653],"class_list":{"0":"post-245489","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-opinion","8":"tag-action-of-the-governor-and-the-sending-of-bills-to-president","9":"tag-article-200-and-course-of-action-by-the-governor-when-bill-passed-by-legislature","10":"tag-constitutional-provision-and-giving-of-assent-to-bill-by-governor","11":"tag-council-of-ministers-and-governor","12":"tag-governor-of-tamil-nadu-and-bills","13":"tag-judgment-of-supreme-court-of-india","14":"tag-judicial-review-of-decision-of-governor-and-president","15":"tag-mandate-of-article-200-of-constitution","16":"tag-question-of-discretion-of-governor-in-withholding-assent","17":"tag-question-of-discretion-of-the-governor-in-reserving-the-bill-for-consideration-of-the-president","18":"tag-special-power-under-article-142","19":"tag-state-of-punjab-vs-principal-secretary-to-the-governor-of-punjab-and-another","20":"tag-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-governor-of-tamilnadu-and-anr","21":"tag-time-limit-and-governor-and-president-of-india-and-issue-of-assent"},"yoast_head":"\n
A restoration of sanity to the constitutional system -<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n