If the governor refuses to approve the bills, is the purpose of 3 provisions of Article 200 not ending? Supreme Court asked

New Delhi : The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Tamil Nadu and the Governor R.N. Important questions raised important questions in the ongoing confrontation between Ravi. The court asked whether the three provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution become ineffective by the governor refusing to give consent on the Bills? These provisions are to give consent on the bills, send the President to reconsider or return the Legislative Assembly for reconsideration. The matter was raised during the hearing on the Tamil Nadu government’s petition challenging the functions and inaction of the Governor. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and R. The bench of Mahadevan has represented the Governor Attorney General R.K. Asked Venkatarmani many questions. After the hearing, the court reserved its decision.

The Government of Tamil Nadu gave Governor R.N. Ravi has been accused of refusing to agree on the bills passed by the Assembly. The government says that the governors are deliberately stopping the bills, which is affecting the functioning of the state. The Supreme Court will explain the rights and duties of the Governor in this case. The court’s decision may also affect other states of the country.

The Supreme Court asked the Attorney General how the governors can send the bills passed again to the President? The bench also asked the Attorney General to show any such communication on behalf of the Governor through which he/she had told the state government his/her objections.

Justice Pardiwala commented, ‘Today we have been told all the time that the Governor’s mind was in mind. Why was the state government not informed about this? If the governor had pointed to deficiencies, the government might have removed those shortcomings.

The court also reiterated that if the state government does not know what is going on in the mind of the Governor, then what will it be reconsidered? The bench also asked whether the Governor has any discretion to stop its consent on the bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly? The bench asked whether it is mandatory for the Governor to take help and advice for the Governor before sending the Bills to the President?

This case is an important example of the sharing of rights between the Governor and the State Government. In Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has the power to agree on the bills, send them to the President or return them to the Legislative Assembly. However, the range of the Governor’s discretion in this article is not clear. The Supreme Court’s decision can bring clarity in this case and can help prevent such disputes in future. This decision can also have far -reaching impact on the federal structure of the country. The Supreme Court’s decision will explain whether the Governor’s rights are unlimited or not.