The Supreme Court can determine a time limit for the president or the governor; What does the Constitution say? - President Drroupadi Murmu questions the Supreme Court ruling on the governors and bills that say the Constitution

Digital Desk, New -Delhi. After the central government, President Drupadi Murmu also questioned the Supreme Court’s decision to set a deadline for the governor and the governor and the president on the bills adopted by the meeting. The president sent 14 questions to the Supreme Court to seek opinion. However, the questions the president sought over the Supreme Court decision were not mentioned, but all the questions were around the decision. Actually, this whole matter is related to Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the Governor RN Kavi there. In the petition, the state government accused the governor of hanging the necessary accounts. A Bank of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made a historical ruling in the event that he stopped the bills by the governor. At the same time, the Supreme Court also set a time limit for the governor and the president to send/reconsider the state accounts for approval/retirement. This Supreme Court ruling soon provoked a debate. Legal experts said that when the time limit was not established for the president in the Constitution, how can the Supreme Court determine a time limit by the judicial order. Now, the president sent a question and sought an opinion. Let us tell you what the whole thing is, what is the decision of the Supreme Court, on which President Drupadi Murmu asked the Supreme Court 14 questions, what 14 questions are being asked and whether the Supreme Court will give the opinion on the questions? On which 14 questions did the president of SC search? What constitutional options do they have as a bill under Article 200 when the governor has a constitutional option? Is the Governor’s Bill obliged to provide advice and assistance by the Cabinet while using the options received under the Constitution on the bill? Is the use of constitutional discretion justified by the Governor in terms of Article 200? Can Article 361 completely prohibit judgment on the rules of the governor? If the time limit and methods have not been determined for using the powers of Article 200 for the Governor in the Constitution, can the court decide this? Can the president’s decision be disputed in court? Can the court determine a time limit if the procedure and deadline are not set on the president to work in the Constitution in Article 201? Is the president mandatory to take in terms of section 143 of the Constitution of the Supreme Court? Can the court hear the decisions on the decisions of the President and the Governor before the Act comes into effect? Can the Supreme Court change the decision of the President or Governor using Article 142? Can the law passed in the Government Meeting be implemented without the approval of the governor under section 200? Is it mandatory to send cases related to the interpretation of the Constitution to a bank of five Supreme Court judges? Can the Supreme Court give such instructions /orders that do not match the Constitution or the current law? Can the Supreme Court solve the dispute between the Central and the State Government? President Draupadi Murmu. Can the file photo ask Rai? Yes, the president may take the opinion of the Supreme Court in the public interest on any fact or legal matter under Article 143 of the Constitution. In addition, the Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction in Article 131 to hear the disputes related to the central government and state governments. In these cases, the opinion of the Supreme Court may also be taken in terms of section 143 (2). Is the Supreme Court obliged to give advice? No, the Supreme Court is not obliged to give the opinion by the president by sending 14 questions. This is not the first time, even before, many times a Raga has been sought at the Supreme Court. RAM Temple Dispute: The Supreme Court referred to the Narasimha Rao government on the Ram Temple dispute-which gives opinion on the issues of historical and mythological facts does not fall under the overview of Article 143. Cauvery Water Disputes: In 1993, the Supreme Court also refused to give opinion on the Cauvery Water Dispped. Gujarat election: In the case of Gujarat election in 2002, the Supreme Court said: ‘The option to send references instead of appeal or reconsidering the petition is wrong. Is it necessary for the president to accept the opinion of the Supreme Court? It is clear from the provisions of the Constitution and many previous decisions that it is not bind for the president and the central government to accept the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143. Does the president have the right to ask for opinion? Yes, the president may take the opinion of the Supreme Court in the public interest on any fact or legal matter under Article 143 of the Constitution. In addition, the Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction in Article 131 to hear the disputes related to the central government and state governments. In these cases, the opinion of the Supreme Court may also be taken in terms of section 143 (2). Is the Supreme Court obliged to give advice? No, the Supreme Court is not obliged to give the opinion by the president by sending 14 questions. This is not the first time, even before, many times a Raga has been sought at the Supreme Court. RAM Temple Dispute: The Supreme Court referred to the Narasimha Rao government on the Ram Temple dispute-which gives opinion on the issues of historical and mythological facts does not fall under the overview of Article 143. The Supreme Court also refused to give opinion on Theism. Gujarat election: In the case of Gujarat election in 2002, the Supreme Court said: ‘The option to send references instead of appeal or reconsidering the petition is wrong. Is the president bound by the opinion of the Supreme Court? From the provisions of the Constitution and many previous decisions, it is clear that it is not bind for the president and the central government to accept the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143. Why did the Supreme Court solve the deadline? First of all, it is important to know where the case started. In fact, a case in the Supreme Court was raised by the Tamil Nadu government in 2023, indicating the Supreme Court in 2023 that 12 bills, including a 2020 bill, are pending with the governor. The governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, has not approved ten important bills for a long time, nor dismissed the bills and did not send to the president. On 18 November 2023, the state government again approved those bills in the meeting in terms of Article 200. Then send it to the governor. On November 28, 2023, the Governor sent those bills to the president for consideration under Article 201. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court. The role of the governor questioned and demanded from the court. Said: ‘Governor does not perform constitutional duties. Is deliberately hampered in the legislative process. The Supreme Court, which exercised the authority of Article 142, ruled on IT: “The president will have to make a decision on the bills the governor sent to the president within three months.” If the president is not taken by the president at the time (three months), the reason for this will be recorded and the relevant state government be notified. “Supreme Court File Photo. What are the provisions in Article 200 and 201 Article 200: The Governor Get 4 Option Bill is sent to the Governor after the meeting, then the governor has four options (approval, approval, sending the meeting for reconsideration and sending the president’s pace). approved, and he is again in the meeting, and he is approved again. www.indiacode.nic.in