'President must also decide on the bills of states within three months, the Supreme Court has given historical decision - the president must also certainly on the bills that received a historical decision within three months within three months within thr

For the first time, the Supreme Court has set a deadline for the president to decide on the bills. The court made an important arrangement and said that the reason for this should be recorded and told to the state concerned. If the president delays the consent, the state may come to the Supreme Court. This is the first time a deadline for the president has been set. Mala Dixit, New -Delhi. In his historical ruling, the Supreme Court for the first time set a time limit to decide on the president’s bills. It is said that the president must make a decision within three months on the bills sent by the governor. If there is a delay in this and the president does not make the decision in the scheduled time, the appropriate reason will be recorded and the state concerned will be told. If the bill is pressed indefinitely, the Supreme Court said that the president has no holding veto or complete veto in Article 201. Article 201 uses the term Shell Declair, which means one of the two options should choose it. Either it must approve the bill, or stop approval. The office of the governor must work under democratic traditions; The constitutional scheme does not allow the constitutional authority to use its powers at random. In this ruling, the Supreme Court has fixed the governor and the president within the lead of the time limit on the consent on the bills. If the president gives permission, the state in question may come to the Supreme Court. The governor’s office must work according to the democratic traditions. The Tamil Nadu government raised the issue, this historical system was given on April 8 by a Bank of Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in a decision on the Tamil Nadu government on April 8. The Tamil Nadu government sent the issue of Governor RN Ravi on 10 bills for a long time and sent the bill to the meeting to give the president of the issue for the issue for the idea of ​​the ideas. The Supreme Court corrected the system for the governors and the president in the 414 pages ruling. This ruling was posted on the Supreme Court website late Friday night. In the judgment of ten bills, the court declared the ten bills stopped by the governor of Tamil Nadu to the Governor, which was approved on the date he was sent again for consideration. This is the first time the Supreme Court has directly approved the bills. Bills gained the status of the Court Act without the signature of the Governor and the President. The Supreme Court decided to directly direct the bills under the special powers obtained in Article 142 of the Constitution. In the ruling, the Supreme Court set out the powers received by the Governor to send the bills adopted from the State Law Assembly to the President for consideration and to approve the president in Article 201. The court said that while there is no time limit for the president’s decision in Article 201 of the Constitution, but that they still have to make a decision in rational time. The power the president receives in Article 201 is not exempt from the general rule of reasoning. In light of the nature of the proceeds, the Sarkaria Commission, the Poonchhi Commission Report and the Mammorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on February 4, 2016, the president must make a decision on the governor that sent the governor within three months. If this time limit is exceeded and delayed, the right reasons must be recorded and the state concerned must be told. The governor has no complete veto, the court said in the ruling that when the governor stops a bill based on the fact that he is completely unconstitutional by the power received under Article 200 and sends the president to the idea of ​​the president, the president must be guided by this Constitutional Court. The bank said it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide the validity and constitutionality of the actions of the executive and legislature. In such a situation, the president in Article 143 of the Constitution must refer to the Supreme Court and take opinion. The court said that the governor has no complete veto and that the same rule also applies to the president. The case of Tamil Nadu came earlier the case of Tamil Nadu, and the High Court decision came in the case of the Tamil Nadu government, the governor raised the governor’s issue to hold the bills for a long time and send it to the president when he returned. However, this is not the first time this has happened. The Gujarat Control of Terrors and Organized Crime Act (Gujkoka) also remained pending with the president and the bill was approved in 2019 when he was sent for the fourth time. While this bill was first sent to the president in 2003. Also read: 10 Bills became legislation without the governor’s approval, why did the Supreme Court have to pronounce such a decision? Also read: Supreme Court only presented the case to the CBI, the Supreme Court through the important remark of the Supreme Court in this case, every latest news and accurate information in the country and the world, every moment on your cellphone! Download now- Jagran app