SC opinion draws mixed reactions from legal experts, political parties, Pg13

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court has stated that no fixed timelines can be set for Governors or the President to approve bills passed by State Assemblies.
• Political parties and legal experts have expressed varied reactions to the Supreme Court's opinion.
• The DMK in Tamil Nadu considers the verdict a "good judgment," while the CPI(M) views it as "deplorable and shocking."
• Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa said the ruling respects the constitutional discretion of the Governor and the President.

Detailed Insights:

• West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee feels that a fixed timeline should be established for Governors to clear bills to avoid them losing significance.
• The Supreme Court continues to guard against prolonged delays in clearing bills, allowing more space for dialogue.
• Senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari clarified that the 10 Tamil Nadu laws, which were granted deemed assent by the top court on April 8, have already been notified in the Gazette.
• Advocate Ashwani Dubey suggests that the core finding of the April 8 judgment has been set aside by the opinion.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Presidential Reference: A mechanism by which the President of India seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on a question of law or fact.
• Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
• Deemed Assent: A legal concept where a bill is considered to have been approved even without explicit assent from the Governor or President, which the court has deemed impermissible.