In an unusual and unprecedented development, two of India’s highest constitutional authorities — the Supreme Court and the President — have found themselves at odds. While both institutions typically operate independently within their well-defined constitutional roles, a recent judicial directive has sparked a rare and significant exchange.
The controversy stems from a Supreme Court ruling that mandates a fixed timeline for the President and Governors to grant assent to bills passed by legislative bodies, including the Parliament and state assemblies. The Court asserted that prolonged delays in giving assent undermine the legislative process and that such inaction could warrant judicial scrutiny.
Aimed at ensuring accountability and a time-bound legislative procedure, the ruling has not been well received by the Rashtrapati Bhavan. President Droupadi Murmu has reportedly raised strong objections to the verdict, expressing concern over what she perceives as an overreach by the judiciary.
In a significant response, the President is said to have sent a 13-point questionnaire to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional basis of its directive. She reportedly questioned, “How can the judiciary impose deadlines on the President? Does this not infringe upon the constitutional autonomy of the President and Governors? Wouldn’t deemed assent amount to a dilution of our constitutional duties?”
This rare instance of friction between the executive and the judiciary has sparked intense public and legal debate, with constitutional experts divided over the limits of judicial oversight in legislative processes. The issue is now expected to escalate into high-level legal consultations, potentially setting the stage for a landmark interpretation of the separation of powers under the Indian Constitution.
Recent Random Post:
బెంగుళూరు ఎయిర్ పోర్టులో దొరికిపోయిన చవిరెడ్డి.! | Police arrest Chavireddy at Bangalore airport
బెంగుళూరు ఎయిర్ పోర్టులో దొరికిపోయిన చవిరెడ్డి.! | Police arrest Chavireddy at Bangalore airport
