The President referred to the Supreme Court and asked for 14 clarifications about what the President believed was related to the Supreme Court’s judgment, which gave the governor and the President a timeline for bills passed by the State Legislature, reflecting the inability of the coalition government to appreciate the commander and demands of our constitution representing democracy. However, the Supreme Court may seize this as an opportunity to drive home, i.e., the makers have no plans to arm the governor and president with veto to undermine the actions of the state legislature, and their role is limited to making rethinks in the case of guaranteeing their assurance.
Answers to most questions raised in references are contained in Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, and a simple reading of them is enough to rest all questions. However, the Presidential Office seeks advice for its consideration of legal issues cannot be blamed because it does not have the ability to judge such matters. The president and governor’s offices were created to serve as older politicians who could act as a guide to the elected government and the legislature rather than judge their behavior.
A simple reading of Sections 200 and 201 describes the lifespan of a bill after the passage of the state legislature. It is submitted for his consent, and the governor can decide in three ways: give him consent, return it to the state legislature as soon as possible, list his objections in writing, or refer it to the president in certain specific cases. When the General Assembly returns the bill for the second time, the governor “cannot refuse to agree.” If the governor’s actions are feasible, as long as he performs his duties in accordance with the rules of the Constitution, there will be no problem.
It may be remembered that many people doubt whether the Supreme Court is right in correct for the time limit for the president-elect is correct, unlike the appointment of the governor of the coalition government. The answer to the question can be found in Article 111, which provides for the procedure to grant the President the consent to the Parliamentary Bill. Under the clause, the process is similar to that described in Section 200, and states that when the bill is brought forth for the second time, the president “cannot refuse consent.” Read together, the articles give the clear impression that constitutional makers are undoubtedly irrelevant to the legislature that is elected.
The new judgment proposed by the court is just a timetable for smooth execution of the constitutional provisions. The government can take constitutional means and introduce them if the court cannot accept the work. But the spirit of seeking to undermine the trial does not enhance the prestige of the presidential office or the coalition government. As of now, the Supreme Court may only need to redefine the primacy of our democratic and constitutional processes by answering the presidential reference once and for all.
