New Delhi8 minutes ago
- copy link
The Supreme Court will on Thursday (November 20) give its verdict on the petitions fixing the deadline for bill approval by the President and the Governor. On September 11, the court completed the hearing and reserved the decision. During the hearing, CJI BR Gavai had said that if any organ of democracy does not perform its duties, the court cannot sit silently.
He had asked that no matter how high a position someone holds, he is not above the law. If the Governor sits on the bills for months, will the court be forced to sit idle?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that the court cannot order the governors to take decisions in a particular way. On this, Justice Surya Kant said – We cannot say how the Governor should take the decision, but we can definitely say that he should take the decision.
Solicitor General said – it is wrong to impose deadline on President-Governor
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the court should make it clear that the decision of the two judge bench to set April 8 as the deadline for the approval of the President and the Governor is not right. He said,
If that decision is considered correct, then in future a large number of petitions will be filed in the court and the burden on the judiciary will increase.
Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar opposed this argument of the Centre. He said that the President did not ask any question in this regard, hence the Supreme Court should not consider this issue.
The hearing was conducted by a bench of 5 judges led by the CJI.
Instead of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai heard the case. The bench comprised Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandrachudkar. The hearing started on 19 August.
During the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented the side of the Central Government. At the same time, opposition ruled states Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh opposed the Centre.
What happened in the last 9 hearings…
September 10: Solicitor General said – Only 20 bills are pending since 1970
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, since 1970 till now only 20 bills remained pending with the President, whereas 90% of the bills are passed in a month. The CJI objected to this and said that it is not appropriate to draw conclusions from the figures alone. If the figures given by the states are not accepted then yours will also not be accepted.
September 9: Karnataka government said – President and Governor are only nominal heads.
The Congress-led Karnataka government argued this and said that under the constitutional system, the President and the Governor are only nominal heads. Both are bound to work on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers at the Center and in the States.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the Karnataka government, told a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai that the Governor’s satisfaction is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers for action on the bills passed in the Assembly. Read the full news…
September 3: Bengal government had said- Governors should take immediate decision on the bill.
Earlier, on September 3, the West Bengal government had argued in the Supreme Court that the public will in the form of a bill cannot be subject to the whims of governors and the President as the executive is prohibited from interfering in the legislative process.
The TMC government had argued that the Governor should immediately take a decision on the bills sent from the Assembly, as he has no power to withhold approval. The Governor cannot question the will of the Sovereign and cannot examine the legislative competence of a bill passed in the Assembly, which falls under the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
September 2: It is not the job of the President and Governors to consider bills.
The governments of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal argued in favor of setting deadlines for the President and Governors to take decisions on bills passed in the Assembly. Kapil Sibal, appearing for West Bengal, argued that the President and Governors have no personal business on the issue of considering the bills. They work to assist the Council of Ministers at the Center and the State. Read the full news…
August 28: Center said- States cannot file writ petition in Supreme Court
The Central Government said that the states cannot file a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the action of the President and the Governor on the bills passed by the Assembly. The Center said that state governments cannot use Article 32. Because fundamental rights are for common citizens, not for states. Read the full news…
26 August: BJP ruled states said – Courts cannot set time limits.
On August 26, BJP ruled states presented their stand in the court. Lawyers from BJP-ruled states including Maharashtra, Goa, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Puducherry said that the court does not have the right to approve the bills.
On this, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai asked that if someone keeps the bills on hold from 2020 to 2025, should the court sit helplessly? CJI asked the Central Government whether the Supreme Court should abdicate its responsibility as the ‘guardian of the Constitution’?
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Maharashtra, said that only the Governor or the President has the right to approve the bills. There is no provision in the Constitution for deemed assent, i.e. a bill can be assumed to have been passed even without approval. Read the full news…
August 21: Center said- States should settle disputes through talks
The Central Government told the Supreme Court that if the Governor does not take any decision on the bills, then the states should find a solution through negotiations instead of the court. The Center said that courts cannot be the solution to all problems. Dialogue should be given priority in a democracy. This has been our practice for decades. Read the full news…
August 20: SC said- Government cannot run on the wishes of the Governors.
The Supreme Court said that elected governments cannot act on the wishes of the governors. If a bill is passed by the State Assembly and comes to the Governor for the second time, the Governor cannot send it to the President. The court said that the Governor does not have the right to withhold approval indefinitely.
19 August: SRakar said- Can the court rewrite the constitution?
In the first day’s hearing on this matter, Attorney General R Venkataramani, on behalf of the Central Government, said on the April 2025 decision of the Supreme Court, can the court rewrite the Constitution? The Court viewed the Governor and the President as ordinary administrative officers, even though they are constitutional posts. Read the full news…
The controversy started from Tamil Nadu…
This matter arose out of a dispute between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the state government. Where the state government bills were withheld from the Governor. The Supreme Court ordered on 8 April that the Governor has no veto power.
In the same decision it was said that the President will have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within 3 months. This order came out on April 11. After this the President sought opinion from the Supreme Court in the matter and asked 14 questions. Read the full news…
——————————–
Also read this news related to Supreme Court…
Supreme Court said – quarrel between neighbors is common: it cannot be considered a crime; Karnataka High Court’s decision canceled
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that quarrels between neighbors are common. Even if there is a fight, argument or scuffle between neighbors, it cannot be considered a crime under abetment of suicide (section 306 of IPC). A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan set aside the Karnataka High Court’s decision which sentenced a woman to three years’ imprisonment for abetting the suicide of her neighbour. The court said, the case of abetment to suicide under Section 306 is made out only when it is clear that the accused has deliberately forced the victim to commit suicide. Read the full news…
Source link
[ad_3]
