Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Assent to Bills
The Supreme Court has mandated that the President must record "cogent reasons and materials" for withholding assent to a bill, even after seeking the Supreme Court's advice under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Article 143
- Grants the President the power to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on significant questions of law or fact.
- The Supreme Court has emphasized that if the President acts against its advice under this Article, they must provide solid reasons.
Requirements for Presidential Actions
- The President needs to justify actions contrary to the Supreme Court's advice with clear reasons and supporting materials.
- A lack of justification could undermine the concept of a "limited government" crucial to the Constitution.
- Providing reasons allows for judicial review and accountability among the government branches, in line with the checks and balances principle.
Timelines for Decisions
The Supreme Court has laid down specific timeframes for governors and the President to decide on bills presented for assent.
Article 201 and Intention Expression
- The expression of intention by the President, through a declaration of reasons for actions under Article 201, is critically important.
- The judiciary can question the bona fides of the President or the central government during judicial reviews.
Role of Governor and President in Constitutionality
- The governor can reserve a bill for the President if its constitutionality is questionable.
- The President is expected to invoke Article 143 to ascertain the bill's constitutional validity.
The judgement metaphorically described the Constitution as a labyrinth, indicating that, unlike a maze, it ultimately leads to enlightenment.
The ruling highlights the President's role in easing constitutional processes for governors, aligning with the idea of constitutional clarity and guidance.
