MHA may file a review petition against the governor’s SC judgment, the president’s role in agreeing to state law

MHA is the node department that handles and communicates the final decision in terms of state legislation through the President of India. document. |Photo source: PTI

The Union Ministry of the Interior (MHA) may submit a review petition against the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment, allowing judicial intervention if the governor refuses to last too long. It also sets out a three-month schedule for the president to decide on the bill mentioned by the governor.

A senior government official told Hindu The petition objected to the judgment, which sets a clear timetable for the governor and the president.

Also Read | Tamil Nadu Governor Case: Supreme Court says authorities occupying the Higher Office must guide the Constitution.

The SC’s judgment was a November 2023 petition filed against the Tamil Nadu government, which indefinitely rejected ten bills passed by the state’s parliament, some of which would be as early as 2020.

Bill should have expired

Second government officials said the review was necessary because the central point of view was not sufficient to reflect during the arguments in this case.

“The judgment paves the way for the restoration of the ‘failed’ bill. According to the Constitution, the bill fails once it is returned or seized by the president. The bill must be re-introduced at the Passage Conference for amendment to be passed, or there is no judgment under the April 8 judgment.

The Tamil Nadu government informed the government communiqué on Saturday after the Supreme Court ruled that it was “deemed” to obtain consent.

“The timeline must be rethinked”

The verdict cites the MHA’s 2016 office memorandum, which clearly shows that a three-month timeline has been made for the bill reserved for the president. “The timeline of the court decision must also be reconsidered,” the official added. ”

The Supreme Court’s petition for review will have to be filed before the same Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan who announced the judgment.

The MHA is the node department that handles and communicates the final decision through the President of India regarding state legislation as stipulated in Article 201 of the Constitution and refuses consent on three reasons: the avoidance of central laws, deviation from state or central policies, and the effectiveness of the law and constitution.