-Historic decision of the Constitution Bench in the Presidential Reference case

New Delhi, . The Supreme Court, while giving a historic verdict on the Presidential Reference case on Thursday, clarified the legislative powers of the Governors and their limitations and said – the Governor does not have the right to stop any bill. The Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai said that the Governor has only three constitutional options to take a decision on the bill, first to give approval, second to send it to the President and third to send it back to the Assembly. Thus, the Governor cannot keep any bill pending without a decision, he has no constitutional basis to do so.

Along with this, the Supreme Court rejected the demand of setting a time limit for the Governor to give decision on any bill. CJI Gavai said, constitutionally there is flexibility designed into Articles 200 and 201. Therefore, the court or the Legislature cannot impose any fixed deadline on the Governor or the President. Along with this, the Supreme Court made it clear in its decision that Governors do not have the right to stop the bills passed by the Assembly.

Actually, this matter was a dispute between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the state government. The Governor had stopped the state government bills here. While hearing this case, the Supreme Court had said on April 8 this year that the Governor has no veto power. Along with this, the Supreme Court had said that the President will have to take a decision on the bill sent by the Governor within three months. This order came out on April 11, on which the President had expressed concern and sought opinion from the Supreme Court and asked 14 questions.

Now in its decision, the Supreme Court has said that the Governor cannot keep any bill pending indefinitely for approval. At the same time, the Supreme Court refused to set a time limit, saying that doing so would violate the principle of separation of powers. A five-judge Constitution bench unanimously held that unilateral blocking of bills by the Governor would be a violation of federalism.