INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has sought to clearly delineate the boundary of action by governors when a bill passed by a state assembly is
governments or sit indefinitely on bills duly passed by the legislature.The November 10 judgment, passed on a plea by the Mann government in
Punjab against governor Banwarilal Purohit, was uploaded on Thursday on the SC website.The bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and JusticesJ B
said Justice Chandrachud, who authored the judgment.The bench also held that the speaker enjoys absolute power for adjourning and proroguing
challenge before a court of law
During the tenure of the assembly, the House is governed by the decisions which are taken by the speaker in matters of adjournment and
been accused by state governments of stalling bills passed by the legislature, although the apex court stopped short of setting a timeframe
The governor, as an unelected head of the state, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers
governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the logical course of action is to pursue the course
Article 200 empowers the governor to withhold assent to a bill
In such an event, the governor must mandatorily follow the course of action which is indicated in the first proviso of communicating to the
It conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition
Failure to take a call and keeping a bill duly passed for indeterminate periods is a course of action inconsistent with that expression
