Tamil Nadu Governor Case: Supreme Court Recalling First President’s Power Fight against India’s Regulations Act

Dr. Rajendra Prasad with members of the Central Cabinet was withdrawn in January 1950 at a government building in New Delhi. Image source: Indian Archives

The Supreme Court recalls the observations of baby India in its Tamil Nadu state governor’s judgment because its first president claimed to have the right to impose discretion and rejected the bill, even if aid and recommendations to the ministerial committee.

When Dr. Rajendra Prasad expressed reservations to the Indian Regulations Act, Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan talked about the bill, which proposed a major reform of Hindu body law proposed in 1951.

Editorial: Legal Milestones: Supreme Court and Tamil Nadu Governor

The Jawhaharlal Nehru government has forwarded the issue to India’s first attorney general MC Setalvad for comment.

“Mr. Sethalwad clarified that the presidential role under the Indian Constitution is similar to that of the British monarch, he is expected to serve as a constitutional figure. The Attorney General believes that the president has no authorization to violate the mandate of the Council of Ministers,” Judge Padivara issued his verdict in late April 8 in his late April 8.

However, the judge said the president’s opinion was “accepted” by the president, and the subsequent dispute between the prime minister and the president was rested.

However, Mr. Setwad’s autobiography, “My Life – Law and Other Small Things”, shows that his opinion makes President Prasad a “Orthodox Hindus.”

“The persistence of Rajendra Prasad’s view of the president’s power surprised Nehru and myself, who raised this question in his speech when he laid the foundation for the Indian Institute of Law in November 1960,” Mr. Setalvad wrote in his memoir.

In his speech, Mr. Setarwad quoted President Prasad as saying that “there is no provision in the Constitution that many people lie down so that the President must act according to the advice of his minister”.

Also Read | Tamil Nadu Government Notices 10 Acts After Supreme Court Judgment

The book says the president noted that “the president of India who is elected and responsible for impeachment cannot be compared with the British king. Dr. Prasad spoke in the presence of Mr. Nehru and Mr. Setwad, who stressed that “our conditions and problems are not in the same state as those of the British.” The president also raised questions about why India’s written constitution must be incorporated into the practice of the “unwritten” constitution of the UK.

Mr. Sethalwad said the president’s speech caused “a huge sensation in parliament and other circles”. Nevertheless, the country’s first top legal official said his opinion had stood the test of time.