SC asks why judiciary can’t review inaction of Governors on Bills , Pg1

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court questioned the Centre and BJP-ruled States regarding the judiciary's power to review a Governor's inaction on State Bills.
• Chief Justice of India (CJI) B. R. Gavai compared the discretionary powers of a Governor under Article 356 (President's Rule) and Article 200 (assent to State Bills) of the Constitution.
• The Presidential Reference was triggered by an April 8 judgment concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor's delay in assenting to Bills since 2020.
• The Centre and some States argued that the judiciary should not impose deadlines on the President and Governors for deciding on State Bills.

Detailed Insights:

• The S.R. Bommai case (1994) established that the proclamation of President's Rule could be judicially reviewed for mala fide intentions.
• Article 356 allows the President to impose President's Rule in a State based on the Governor's report about the failure of the constitutional machinery.
• Article 200 outlines the Governor's powers concerning State Bills presented for assent, including the option to reserve them for Presidential consideration.
• The Supreme Court is examining whether the judiciary can intervene when Governors delay decisions on State Bills for extended periods.
• Some legal experts argue that the Governor's assent to a Bill is a legislative function and should not be subject to judicial review.
• The CJI referenced Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's vision of the Centre and States operating within their defined constitutional boundaries.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 356: Provisions related to the imposition of President’s Rule in a state due to the failure of constitutional machinery.
• Article 200: Deals with the Governor's power to grant or withhold assent to bills passed by the State Legislature.
• Presidential Reference: Under Article 143, the President may seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.