Supreme Court allows Kerala to withdraw pleas against Governor over delayed Bills
The Supreme Court permitted the State of Kerala to withdraw two petitions filed against its Governor for delaying crucial Bills. The withdrawal was based on an April 8 judgment in a similar case concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor, which prescribed a maximum three-month deadline for the President and State Governors to act on State Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The Attorney General stated it was not a simple withdrawal but based on the precedent. The President had also issued a reference under Article 143 to question the court's inherent powers to impose timelines on Governors.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court allowed Kerala to withdraw petitions against its Governor regarding delays in clearing Bills.
- The withdrawal was influenced by an April 8 judgment setting a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to act on State Bills.
- The April 8 judgment applies to Bills sent for approval or reserved for consideration under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
- A Presidential Reference under Article 143 has been issued to question the Supreme Court's power to impose such timelines on constitutional functionaries.
- The case highlights issues related to the federal structure and the powers of State Governors concerning legislative assent.
Exam Facts
- The Supreme Court allowed Kerala to withdraw pleas against its Governor.
- The April 8 judgment prescribed a three-month deadline for action on State Bills.
- Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution deal with assent to Bills by Governors and the President.
- Article 143 of the Constitution pertains to the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.