The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the petition implementing the deadline to sign the bills on the President and the governors. Meanwhile, the court said, “It is not wrong for President Draupadi Murmu to seek opinion from the court under Article 143.”
Murmu sought an opinion from the Supreme Court in May whether the President or Governor could delay the decision on the Bills indefinitely or a deadline could be fixed.
A 5 -judge bench, including Chief Justice BR Gavai, also clarified that the President is sitting in the advisory juridiction, not in the appeal jurisdiction. The court can give the opinion that any decision is not correct, but the old decision will not end automatically.
On this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, citing an old case, said that the court can cancel a decision even under the jurisdiction. In response, the Chief Justice said, “Rai can be changed, not a decision.”
The matter was raised from the dispute between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the State Government. Where the state government bills were stopped from the governor. The Supreme Court on 8 April ordered that the Governor has no veto power. It was said in this decision that the President will have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within 3 months. The order came to light on 11 April. The President then sought opinion from the Supreme Court in the case and asked 14 questions.
Theme of August 19: The initial objections of the Government of Kerala and Tamil Nadu were heard. Both the states say that most of the questions raised by the President have already been replied in the Tamil Nadu decision.
SC Bench: CJI BR Gawai, Justice Suryakant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar heard.
On behalf of the government: Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta joined.
On behalf of the Government of Kerala: Senior Advocate KK Venugopal joined.
From Tamil Nadu: Abhishek Manu Singhvi attended.
