New Delhi: Everyone feels the need for balance in the central-state relations. Just as Justice BR Gawai took the oath of the Supreme Court Chief Justice, the list of three questions came to him by President Draupadi Murmu. Will the Bench of the Supreme Court answer these questions? The point is that the court can determine the timeframe for the President or the Governor? With no such provision in the Constitution, the President has sought the opinion of the Supreme Court under section 4 (1) of the Constitution on whether to determine the three -month period under Section 2 of the Supreme Court. Section 1 (1) Allows the President to ask for the Supreme Court’s opinion on any question of law or fact.
Finally why this question was created?
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi had postponed the three bills approved by the State Legislative Assembly for the thought of the President. On this issue, the Supreme Court had fixed a deadline and said that if the bill was sent for the first time, the governor should take a decision within 6 months. If the Legislative Assembly is re -sent and sent to the bill, it should be decided within 6 months. The Supreme Court also fixed a 6 -month term for the President. This led to the controversy that how can anyone inform the nation’s highest constitutional prominent president about the time limit? Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhad had criticized the attitude of the judiciary in this regard and said that the superiority of the Parliament could not be challenged.
Pakistan’s pieces fixed! BLA attacked 14 soldiers; What is the truth in the video?
The Parliament has the right to legislate and the judiciary has exceeded its authority by laying a time -consuming time to approve or reject the bill. This is a point that will affect the balance of the center-state relationship. No timeframe is prescribed for the President and the Governor in the Constitution. The creators of the Constitution may not even imagine such a conflict between the central and states in the future and the conflict between the opposition parties of the states and the representatives of the Center will be created.
The Supreme Court is not obliged to give advice.
In the context of the Narasimha Rao government on the Ram temple dispute, the Supreme Court had said that vote for historical and mythological facts does not come into the room of section 4. Likewise, in 1979, the court refused to vote on the Kaveri water dispute. In the case of Gujarat elections in 2, the court said that the option of sending references instead of filing an appeal or reconsideration petition was incorrect. According to the court’s rules, the Center should file a reconsideration petition in the Tamil Nadu case.
Indian Economy: China, the whole world will fall behind with the American, India’s economy will be strong; Reported
The court may refuse to vote on the context. If he accepted this context, then there may be debate in the court over the central-state relations, federal system, the authority of the governor and the abuse of section 4. In the Indore Municipal Corporation, a bench of the six judges of the Supreme Court had ruled that there should be no court intervention in the decisions of the Parliament and the Center in strategic matters.
Writer-Chandramohan Dwivedi
-
Helicopters crash in Finland, killing 5 including Estonian business figures
-
2 Helicopters Collide Mid-Air In Finland’s Eura Province, Leaving 'Several Dead'
-
When Moushumi Chatterjee was removed from Amitabh Bachchan’s movie due to…, she was replaced by…
-
Dimple Kapadia was once asked to leave Rajesh Khanna’s birthday party by…, ‘she pretended to be…’
-
Barcelona have decided to sell 22-year-old this summer
