Out of the ten bills, two were passed by the current Assembly and the other two came from the previous Assembly.
Source: The Times of India
These included the state government’s authority to designate vice-chancellors of universities, the ban on internet gambling, and other issues. They were all within the Assembly’s legislative authority, and the Governor had to agree to them all. The impasse caused by the Governor’s inaction on the bills had drawn the serious attention of the Supreme Court. The Governor was not positively impacted by the court’s concern. He returned ten banknotes in one go without explaining why he didn’t agree with them in the first place or why he was returning them this way. His actions appear motivated more by irritation over the court’s concerns than by conviction.
The Governor cannot permanently withhold his or her assent to a measure; instead, they must return it to the Assembly with a message that may contain a request for revisions, according to the Supreme Court’s 2016 Nabam Rebia ruling. Governor Ravi’s large-scale bill return is against the spirit of this ruling. During its extraordinary meeting last week, the Assembly once more approved the proposals. Article 200 mandates that the governor assent to the bills immediately; however, if the governor withholds consent once more, there is no recourse.
Source: CNBC- TV18
It is premature to declare that the crisis has been resolved given the history of conflict between Governor Ravi and the state government as well as the irrational lengths he has gone to in relation to the bills and other matters. The governor has acted as a rival centre of power in the state, interfered with governance, and claimed powers that do not exist. Only a purposeful and intentional attempt to overthrow the government could have motivated this.
By doing this, he has also compromised the power and authority of the Supreme Court, the democratic process, and the Constitution. The Governor’s unusual behaviour prompted the Supreme Court to question why the Governor hadn’t made a decision on the billsu2014some of which had been presented for assent nearly four years agou2014until the court had given notice in the case. This was an uncommon but appropriate move. It is inappropriate for the Governor to act in a way that is intended to incite conflict between the democratic institutions. He has to be called back immediately.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
