SC flags Governors sitting on Bills as Centre terms dispute a ‘false alarm’, Pg13

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court questioned the Union government about Governors delaying assent to Bills for years [since 2020 in the case of Tamil Nadu].
• The Centre called the disputes raised by non-BJP-ruled States a “false alarm”.
• A five-judge Bench is hearing a Presidential Reference regarding the Governor's role in assenting to Bills.
• The court had earlier prescribed a three-month timeline for the President and Governors to decide on Bills.

Detailed Insights:

• The issue arose after the Tamil Nadu government approached the court, citing delays in gubernatorial assent to 10 Bills since 2020.
• The Solicitor-General argued for collaboration between the State and Governor, cautioning against reducing the Governor to a mere rubber stamp.
• The court is examining the legal questions raised in the Presidential Reference, not the political timing of such delays.
• The court is considering whether a Governor withholding assent should trigger a consultative process involving the State legislature.
• Arguments were presented that indefinite delays by Governors render Article 200 unworkable and that gubernatorial actions should be judicially reviewed for discrimination.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 200: Deals with the Governor's role in assenting to Bills passed by the State legislature, including reserving them for presidential consideration.
• Presidential Reference: The power of the President of India to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on a question of law or fact of public importance.
• Separation of Powers: The division of governmental authority among different branches (legislative, executive, judicial) to prevent abuse of power.