Trial in the Supreme Court of Presidential References finalized is ruling - Center insists that the Supreme Court reconsider the time limit for the president of the Governor on Bills

Updated: Do, 11 Sep 2025 10:30 pm (IST) The Central Government has requested the Supreme Court not to listen to the ruling to set a deadline for the governor and the president in the Tamil Nadu case to set a time limit on the bills. The government said that the part of the ruling on the bills of Tamil Nadu will remain. The court also requested that if the governor is employed, the court will be powerless. Jagran Bureau, New -Delhi. The central government told the Supreme Court on Thursday to declare the court that it is not the right legal system for the governor and the president to set a deadline for decisions that make decisions in the case of Tamil Nadu. However, the central government said that the part of the decision would remain and that the decision would also apply to Tamil Nadu’s bills. Remove the advertisement, just read the news on behalf of the central government, this request was made by the validity General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Center for the Presidential Reference. During the hearing, the court also questioned the central government that if the governors failed in their duties, the court would remain powerless and sit in Vishnya. The Five Member Constitution Bank of the Supreme Court reserved its ruling upon completion of the debate of all parties on the presidential reference. A Bank of the two members Supreme Court last ruled in April in the case of Tamil Nadu, in which the time limit for the governor and the president set a time limit to make decisions on the bills adopted by the Government Meeting. The court also declared ten bills of Tamil Nadu, which was stopped by the governor. It was the first time the bills had been directly approved by the court order. After this ruling, President Draupadi Murmu sent a reference asking the court’s opinion on 14 legal questions. The president has asked the Supreme Court to determine a time limit when there is no time limit for the governor and the president is about taking decisions on the bills in the Constitution. Although the decision by Tamil Nadu was not directly challenged in the reference, all the questions asked for the decision. The questions asked in the entire reference in the Supreme Court about the presidential references are related to the powers of the governor and the president’s decisions on the pace transferred from the Government Meeting in terms of Article 200 and 201 under Articles 200 and 201. The Five -Member -Constitutional Bank of Chief Justice Br Gawai, Justice Suryakant, Vikram Nath, Ps Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar held a ten -day on the president’s president. The center and BJP ruled that states opposed the time limit for the central government, and the BJP ruled that states argued in favor of reference, ie the court opposed the time limit by the court, while non -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjp -bjps said that indefinitely can’t stop. The governor will work with the advice of the Council of Ministers, he has no discretion. These states also supported the time limit for the governor and the president. It is also said that when the Supreme Court is decided on any issue, the court should not consider the presidential reference to it. Also said that the decision of the court given in the case of Tamil Nadu is binding and that the Supreme Court in the presidential references will not just give in it. The center gained a reputation on Thursday by Saliser -General Tushar Mehta of the Center. Apart from this, Attorney General RK Venkataramani also offered the side. Mehta opposed the time limit for the governor and the president of the court and cited the first population of powers in the Constitution. Chief Justice Br Gawai said he had firm confidence in the principle of first force to the powers. It is also believed that there must be judicial activism, but it should not become a judicial audacity. The Court should not order that the legislative discretionary works, and thereby, if one aspect of democracy fail to fulfill its duties, the Court, which is the guardian of the Constitution, will remain powerless and inactive. In response, Mehta said that the executive and the legislature are also the patron of the Constitution. The court should not command the legislative discretionary functions of the Constitutional Officer (Governor), it violates the principle of refreshing powers.