Constitutional Debate: Fixed Timelines for Presidents and Governors in the Spotlight
The Supreme Court hears arguments against fixed timelines for Presidents and Governors in bill approval. The Centre, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argues such timelines limit constitutional discretion. They emphasize historical debates and the framers' intent to avoid rigid deadlines for these roles.
- Country:
- India
The debate over constitutional timelines for bill approval by Presidents and Governors reached the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The Centre contends that imposing such deadlines restricts their discretionary powers, an omission intentionally left by the Constitution's framers.
Appearing before a Constitution bench, Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that judicial directions set by an April 8 verdict altered constitutional roles, affecting the President's actions concerning state legislation.
The legal minds urged a review of constitutional intent, referencing historical debates around Articles 200, 201, and related provisions. They maintained that the judgment encroaches on legislative domains and undermines the advisory role of state councils.
(With inputs from agencies.)
Google News