'Governors run out of the Constitution, not to the will of the parties', SC matches the historical decision when the bill was stopped - the governor, according to the Constitution, does not work according to the wishes of the parties who give a history of

Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan’s bank said in a ruling on the plea of ​​the Tamil Nadu government that the governor’s actions to keep ten bills for the idea of ​​the president are illegal and random. Not only that, the court ordered that these ten bills be approved as from the same date on which the date was submitted to the Governor for Herwaarts. Mala Dixit, New -Delhi. The Supreme Court has given a historical and important decision on the rights of the governors. The court set the powers of the governor for the approval of the bills. The Point Court made clear that the governor could not sit by pushing the bills indefinitely. They will have to make a decision on the bills that went or acted within the set time of the meeting. The court set a month and three -month deadline to make decisions by the governor on the bills for approval. Not only that, the court advised the governors in the ruling that they should not be directed by political views. It should smooth the operation of the state machinery and not stagnate it. It should be catalyst, not inhibitors. In addition, the peak court pressed the governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, for a long time on the ten bills and later, when the meeting returned the meeting, he was declared wrong to send him to the president for consideration. Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan’s bank said in a ruling on the plea of ​​the Tamil Nadu government that the governor’s actions to keep ten bills for the idea of ​​the president are illegal and random. Not only that, the court ordered that these ten bills be considered acceptable from the same date on which the date was submitted to the Governor for Herwaarts. It is also said that if the president made any decision on the bills, it would also be considered zero. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ordered the bills to be approved directly in its order. The Supreme Court expressed this ruling to approve the bills using the special powers obtained in Article 142 of the Constitution. In the ruling, the court said that the bill had been sent again after reconsideration by the legislature would have to approve the governor. The governor cannot discuss him for the idea of ​​the president. This ruling of the Supreme Court is historic, because it has so far been understood that there is no time limit in the Constitution to approve the bills by the governor, and the governor can therefore not be asked to make decisions in the scheduled time. But this decision said that the governor will have to make or act a decision on any account within a month and three months. That is, the principle of reasoning will apply. The time limit is not decided in the Constitution; The Supreme Court has set the deadline for the ruling on the Governor’s bills in the ruling that the governors in Article-200 of the Constitution are no time limit to approve the bills or take action against the bills adopted by the meeting. Nevertheless, Article-200 cannot be read in such a way that the governor will not be allowed to take action against the bills offered for approval. In this way there is a delay and the machinery of the legislation is hampered in the state. The Supreme Court said the maximum period of one month would be in the event of the approval of a bill and submitted to the president with the help of the Council of Ministers and Advice. If the governor decides not to approve without the assistance and advice of the Council of Ministers, the bills will have to return to the meeting in such a case over three months. The godha said that the governor must approve the bill within a month in the event of the government meeting being established for recycling after the bill was reconsidered. The court warned in the ruling that the court or imprisonment to follow this time limit could be assessed by the court. Members of the state law are preferred by the people, so they are more able to ensure the benefit of the people. The governor does not have the right to complete or keep in the bag. The court said that the veto of the bag is a concept in which the governor sits without signing the bill that makes it virtually ineffective. The court made it clear in the ruling that the governor does not have the right to discuss the bill sent by the Legislative Assembly to the president. The bill sent for the second time for approval will have to approve the governor. However, there may be an exception that the bill is different from the earlier bill. The court said in the ruling that the governor should play his role in a fairness as a friend, philosopher and guide. Do not be directed by political views. Every latest news and accurate information from the country and the world, every moment on your phone! Download now- Jagran app