Sekarreporter: https://x.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1991388041932644671?t=WT31CwDmBdoc-vbXfcAQqA&s=08 [20/11, 12:10] Sekarreporter: #BREAKING Summary of #SupremeCourt’s opinion in Presidential Reference : 1. If Governor is withholding assent for a Bill, then it must be returned to the Legislature.

[20/11, 12:10] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1991388041932644671?t=WT31CwDmBdoc-vbXfcAQqA&s=08
[20/11, 12:10] Sekarreporter: #BREAKING Summary of #SupremeCourt’s opinion in Presidential Reference :

1. If Governor is withholding assent for a Bill, then it must be returned to the Legislature.

2. Governor has discretion and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in deciding assent for Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution.

3. Discharge of functions by the Governor under Article 200 is not justiciable. The Court can issue a limited direction to the Governor to decide in a reasonable time if there is prolonged, unexplained or indefinite inaction.

4. Immunity under Article 361 will not shield the Court’s power to issue directions for a time-bound decision in cases of prolonged delay.

5. The Court cannot prescribe timelines for the Governor’s decision on Bills under Article 200.

6. The President’s assent under Article 201 cannot be subjected to judicially prescribed timelines.

7. The President’s action under Article 201 is not justiciable.

8. The President is not bound to seek Court’s advice every time a Bill is reserved by the Governor for President’s assent.

9. The Constitution does not allow the concept of “deemed Assent” for Bills.

10. Supreme Court cannot use Article 142 powers to declare “deemed assent” for Bills.