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

Tamil Nadu Governor Case: The Supreme Court reminds the constitutional authorities that occupy high-level positions must be guided by the values ​​of the constitution. File | Picture source: M. Periasamy

The Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated verdict on Friday (April 11, 2025) that announced the prolonged delay of Tamil Nadu Governor RN RAVI and retained 10 re-retained bills and retained the October 28 President Droupadi Murmu for November 28, 2023, 2023, “law firms” and “error”.

The court also puts aside the outcome steps taken by President Mulm on the bill Not the best.

Read the full judgment here

Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the governor’s inaction for a long time, and the bills have been constantly being heard during his trial, and he eventually announced the announcement of his refusal to agree, as well as the judgment he showed on the principal’s judgment in recognition of his other deliberations in recognition of his other deliberations. Function.

“We have no choice but to exercise our inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, with the aim of declaring that these 10 bills were considered agreed upon on November 18, 2023, after being reconsidered by the state legislature IE, after it was reconsidered to the governor after it was reconsidered to the governor,” the court announced. ”

The judgment was announced in public court on April 8 but was not published until now.

Editorial | Legal milestones: Supreme Court and Tamil Nadu Governor

In the judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the Governor, with his personal dissatisfaction, political expediency or any other “insignificant or insignificant considerations” as such as the President’s considerations for the President are strictly prohibited.

For these reasons, the reference to the governor’s bill being submitted to the president may be immediately put on hold by the Constitutional Court.

The court explained that retaining a bill to consider the president would be based solely on the enormous danger to democratic principles and for clear reasons.

“If the Governor reserves a bill to consider the President’s deliberations are based on reasons for danger to democratic or democratic principles, or on other special reasons, the Governor will refer to the President in particular, correctly point out, correctly show that by making a specific provision in this regard, and in this regard such effect is determined, and if the Bill is allowed, the Bill can be determined by a judgment.

Judge Padivara observed that the governor should also indicate his subjective satisfaction with why it is impossible to reduce or contain the above consequences by resorting to the constitutional court of the country.

The state government can question such reservations based on the necessary reasons provided by a portion of the governor.

They can say that the reasons indicated by the Governor are totally irrelevant, Mara’s, arbitrary, unnecessary or motivated by irrelevant considerations. The Constitutional Court will be “fully feasible” to the question.

If the governor sits on the bill for more than three months’ time limit, the state government can contact the competent court through a writ of Marthams. If the governor cannot provide sufficient explanation for his delay, the state can seek a quick decision of the bill through the court.

Judge Padivara believes: “The governor reserves a bill to consider the president and the president and then retains the consent thereafter, and should be opened to the state government to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court reminded the constitutional authorities to occupy the high office that the value of the constitution must be guided by the value of the constitution.

Read also | Waiting for bills: Karnataka is likely to contact the Supreme Court as per Tamil Nadu order

These values ​​that the Indian people cherish so much are the result of years of struggle and sacrifice of our ancestors.

Judge Padivara wrote: “When asked to make a decision, these authorities must not succumb to short political considerations and be guided by the spirit that constitutes the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court warned that if authorities try to deliberately bypass constitutional mandates, they will patch up in the ideals respected by the people established in the country.

“We took this opportunity to quote Dr. Br Ambedkar’s concluding speech at the composition rally, today is as important as in 1949 – ‘Whether the constitution may be a good constitution, it must be a bad thing because those who are asked to work happen to be a bad thing. Whether the composition is a bad one, if the composition is a bad one, it may be a good official, that is, those facts are good things.