SC steps in due to egregious situation in T.N. Governor case regarding pending Bills
The Supreme Court intervened in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, granting deemed assent to 10 State Bills that had been pending since 2020. The Bench clarified its action was to resolve an "egregious situation" and not to overrule previous judgments. Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that the Governor was within his powers under Article 200 to withhold assent and was not bound by the Council of Ministers' advice. A Presidential Reference is currently questioning the SC's power to impose three-month deadlines on Governors, with the A-G contending that Article 142 cannot supplant substantive law or violate the Constitution's basic structure.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court intervened in the Tamil Nadu Governor case to resolve a situation where State Bills were pending since 2020.
- The Attorney General argued that the Governor's power to withhold assent under Article 200 is discretionary and not bound by the Council of Ministers' advice.
- The SC clarified its action was not meant to overrule previous judgments but to address a 'glaring' factual situation.
- A Presidential Reference is questioning the SC's power to impose time limits on Governors for assenting to State Bills.
- The A-G contended that the SC's extraordinary powers under Article 142 cannot override the basic structure of the Constitution or legislative functions.
Exam Facts
- Supreme Court's intervention in Tamil Nadu Governor case regarding 10 State Bills pending since 2020.
- Article 200 of the Constitution grants Governors power to assent or withhold assent to State Bills.
- Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice.
- The case involves a Presidential Reference questioning the SC's power to impose three-month deadlines on Governors.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.