A vision of the Supreme Court. The court still was hope that freezing in ties could be resolved with a cup of coffee before the hearing scheduled on February 6. Photo credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 4, 2025) promised to resolve the strip of the war between the government of Tamil Nadu and Governor Rn Ravi “in the spirit of the Constitution”, and in the “interest of all”, even ” , even while maintaining that the freezing in ties can be resolved with a cup of coffee before the Court Court scheduled on February 6.
The shock of views between the governor and the government led by MK Stalin is innumerable issues, ranging from the delay in the assent to the key law projects on issues of higher education, waiting for the sanction of the prosecutions , the remission of prisoners, government orders and the constitution of the search committees for the appointment of Vice Chancellor (V-CS).
“The governor’s table is empty. There is nothing at all, ”said Attorney General R. Venkataramani, who appears in the governor’s office, told JB Pardiwala Jud and R. Mahadevan.
He referred to the action of the governor to refer 10 bills of law, largely with respect to higher education in the State, to the President on November 18, 2023. The President had subsequently settled for a bill, rejected and did not consider the remaining two proposed laws.
The State, represented by the main lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, AM Singhvi and P. Wilson, and lawyer Sabarish Subramanian, argued that the governor’s decision to reserve the case for the president’s consideration was “illegal ex-Facie, without jurisdiction and in serious violation of the Constitution ”.
“The concession of assent to the bill of its excellence, the honorable president of India is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Government of the Union should have advised its excellence to return the 10 bills to the governor honor, since it is completely in serious violation of the principles of the Constitution under the first condition of article 200 [Governor’s assent to Bills]”The state government said.
Judge Pardiwala consulted if there was any specific consideration that should weigh on the governor for referring a bill to the President and, subsequently, how the president would analyze a bill sent by the governor.
Mr. Singhvi, who has the court through article 200, said that a governor has three options when the legislature refers to a bill by the Legislature: it must give assent or retain the assent or reserve the bill for the president’s consideration.
In case the assent is withdrawn, if it is not a money bill, the proposed law must be returned to the state legislature “as soon as possible”, with comments. If the legislature reiterates the bill, the governor has no choice but to grant assent, he said.
Mr. Singhvi said that the only time a governor could send a bill to the President is when the proposed law threatens to repeal or reduce the constitutional powers of the Superior Court of the State.
“The governor cannot act as a super prime minister. There is a reason why governors are not chosen. Dr. Ambedkar said there can be no two swords in the same pod, ”said Singhvi.
He said that crucial laws, before being sent to the president, were delayed by the governor for “days, months, years.” “The governor cannot retain perpetually. The first condition of article 200 requires that the governor return the bill “as soon as possible,” he said.
Mr. Wilson told the bank that the governor and prime minister talked about a cup of coffee in the past. The prime minister had also written to the governor urging him to act under the aid and the Council of the Council of Ministers, he said.
“The governor, however, acted on his own and sent the bills to the President. That is clearly unconstitutional, ”said Wilson.
Published – February 5, 2025 05:51 am isth
By
