Tamil Nadu vs. Governor: ‘SC decision can create an imbalance in the federal structure’. Bharat News

New Delhi: supreme courtThe recent decision to clean the 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly without the consent of the state governor RN Ravi, and the top court’s move to fix the deadline for all the governors and the President has been included in the form of “historic” and “a victory for federalism”, which has been partially included in the form of a review between the reports, which were a review between many opposition reports. Can
Justice JB Pardwala and R Mahadevan’s SC Bench, without words, “where the Governor reserves a bill for the view of the President and the President, then, will be open to the state government to reject such action before this court”.
Given that the Governor is required to follow the assistance and advice given by the Council of Ministers, the apex court said that it is not open to reserve a bill for the President’s view to the Governor, once presented in the second round, after returning to the first house.
In addition, the decision makes the decision more important, the court of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This provision allows the Supreme Court to give “complete justice” in cases where no direct legal measures may exist. And in this case, justice came as a rigorous reminder: Governor is not above the Constitution, and his role is not to act as gatekeepers for political interests.
The apex court also provided a support to the state government and said that if a Governor reserves a bill for the view of the President and the President has later accepted, the state government has the right to challenge that decision before the Supreme Court.
While this decision has been welcomed by the Chief Ministers of non-BJP ruled states, Senior SC Advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma argues that it can “create an imbalance in the federal structure if not angry with constitutional discipline.”
Speaking to TOI, he said, “The political turf war between states and governors, especially in the ruled areas of the opposition, will be formed. What has changed is the axis of power: the upper hand is now tilted towards the states. While this state strengthens legislation autonomy, it is not even when it is not involved in the federal structure.

Different engines government vs. double-engine government

The SC decision comes as the Center and many state governments, especially those who have not been aligned properly, are engaged in a power quarrel to clean the bills.
The opposition has accused the Bharatiya Janata Party-led central government of using governors in non-BJP states, which is a weapon as a weapon to create friction with governments-it is delayed by the passage of bills in Kerala, West Bengal, Karnataka, Punjab or Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin had commented that the Center was running a “parallel government” through the Governors, stating that it was “not only against federal principles but also against the Indian Constitution. India is now looking at cheap politics by the governors, which are unfit to organize such high positions.”
Last year, the apex court had noticed the West Bengal and Kerala governments, both confused with their respective governors in prolonged deadlock when they agreed to delay the bills.
Kerala, led by CPM’s left Democratic Front, approached the court in March, arguing that its Governor had wrongly referred to seven bills-for the President’s affairs for the President’s affairs, he was left pending for two years. The state claimed that the move reduced the legislation of the Legislature.
Similarly, West Bengal, ruled by the Trinumool Congress, alleged that his governor agreed to eight bills and in a hurry referred to some President, when hearing the President once after the court hearing.
In the case of Punjab, SC warned the then Governor Banwarill Purohit, warned, “You are playing by fire.” The court expressed serious concern over the legislative deadlock in the state and took a difficult stand on the failure of the Governor in accepting the bills passed by the state assembly.

A two-way fight?

And when the opposition -ruled states are celebrating this decision, there are examples when they have opposed the implementation of central legislations. Recently, Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin refused to implement the Center-Annomodit Waqf ActThe Kerala government opposed the Citizenship Amendment Act, and the Punjab government now passed a resolution against the agricultural laws. Apparently, it is a tug of war, both the centers and the state wherever they can call their shots. However, the center, with the governor under his control, probably has more weapons in its armor.
In addition, the state governments do not have the privilege of sitting on the bills as the governors do. Therefore, the SC mentioned in the recent decision that the Governor should “lubricate the functioning of the state machinery by” the forerunner of consensus and resolution, the forerunner, his relaxation, knowledge, and it should not run in a stagnation. He must be a catalyst and keeping in mind a inhibitor.
The decision under the question, however, “moves the constitutional balance in favor of the states,” Sharma said.
“This decision undoubtedly transferred the constitutional balance in favor of the states. It traditionally reduces the discretionary place for the governors – even in cases where the constitution clearly provides it for it. Whereas sometimes the kingdom can be correct, and at the other time, the governor can be, can be judged through” correct “.
However, Parliament has the power to pass the legislation to reverse SC decisions. Talking about such a possibility, Sharma said, “There is a strong possibility that the decision will be reconsidered by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court and the instructions and mandate of this decision will remain until the verdict by a large bench. However, if for any reason, if not, the government should consider to remove this decision.”