Earlier on April 8, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, while hearing the case of State of Tamil Nadu against Governor of Tamil Nadu, held that a Governor must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a Bill, and within one month when a Bill is re-enacted.The court, which had on April 8 rarely invoking its powers under under Article 142, declared that prolonged inaction by the Governor was “illegal” and directed that the ten pending Bills from Tamil Nadu be deemed to have received assent.Challenging this verdict, President Murmu had moved the top court on May 13, with 14 crucial questions raised by her — in the presidential reference — challenging the SC’s April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.President Murmu, while exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), moved the apex court and said in the present circumstances, it appeared that 14 questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Source link