Mentor’s Comments-
- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/gubernatorial-procrastination-is-unreasonable/article65972785.ece
- In the introduction, briefly talk about the position of governor vis-à-vis state assembly.
- In the body, mention the constitutional provisions involving the governor with respect to passage of a bill.
- In next part, mention whether the decision of the governor can be challenged or not backed by SC verdict.
- Conclude accordingly.
Payment ID : #0000645504
Staff @CD
Alankrit
First part of the question is well answered, that is the options available to the governor in case a bill reaches him. Also, it is not necessary to mention all the articles of the executive. Article 200 which talks about the options available will be apt here.
But deeper understanding will be expected in 2nd part. You need to mention both the aspects. The constitution, nowhere mentions that the governor can sit on the bill indefinitely, so that can also be argued to be unconstitutional.
Also, the governor while declaring that he withholds assent will have to disclose the reason for such refusal as being a high constitutional authority he cannot act arbitrarily. Further, Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. vs Union of India held that immunity granted by Article 361 does not take away the power of the court to examine the validity of the action including on the ground of malafides.
Hence, it can be said that although such disputes need to be avoided, but still the state government has a recourse to the court.
Examples of TN, Kerala can be mentioned in the introduction itself, to give a context to the answer.
Keep practicing. 🙂
KPfn46R1gsfT12 -My Razorpay ID
Shubham
In introduction, no need to mention about other powers of the governor, it looks half-baked. Article 200 will suffice. Further, you can talk about considerable confrontations between the state governments and the governors regarding passage of a bill in recent times. ( in Tamil Nadu, the governor forwarded the bill for exemption from NEET to the president after considerable delay; Kerala Governor publicly announced that he would not give assent to the Lokayukta Amendment Bill and the Kerala University Amendment Bill).
In next part, although most points are fine but some corrections need to be made. For example, the governor does have an absolute veto in case of ordinary bills although the move will be quite unpopular.
The constitution, nowhere mentions that the governor can sit on the bill indefinitely, so that can also be argued to be unconstitutional.
Also, the governor while declaring that he withholds assent will have to disclose the reason for such refusal as being a high constitutional authority he cannot act arbitrarily. Further, Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. vs Union of India held that immunity granted by Article 361 does not take away the power of the court to examine the validity of the action including on the ground of malafides.
Hence, it can be said that although such disputes need to be avoided, but still the state government has a recourse to the court.
Need to revise the content a bit.
Keep practicing. 🙂