The year opened on a shocking note with the accidental discovery of unaccounted cash by firefighters responding to a blaze at the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma.
The Court reiterated that, “In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the Governor, it would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.”
Responding to the Presidential reference made in the case of the Tamil Nadu Bills verdict, the Supreme Court said “deemed assent”, invoked earlier this year in the Tamil Nadu case, is “antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution” and goes against the principle of separation of powers.
These provisions empower the Governor to either grant assent, withhold assent and return a Bill to the legislature for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President — who in turn acts under Article 201.
The Bench made the remarks as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta insisted that under Article 200 a Governor can withhold assent to a Bill, and courts cannot issue a mandamus in such a situation.
SC on Thursday reserved the verdict regarding a presidential reference about constitutional timelines for governors and the President to assent…
It was pointed out to the court that the governor is not a “super chief minister” empowered to withhold even a money Bill, but only a titular head, described as an “ornamental” constitutional functionary acting as a “lubricator and facilitator” in the administration of the State.
A five-judge Constitution Bench stated it would first hear Tamil Nadu and Kerala on the preliminary issue of maintainability, after both States argued that the Reference amounts to an “appeal in disguise” against the Court’s April 8 judgment.
