Closing logic: In terms of President of the apex court

The Central Government has missed the opportunity by unpounted governors to put a lid on prolonged disputes on supernatural and undemocratic use of power. A Supreme Court verdict on April 8, 2025 Explained the constitutional status on the powers of the Governor and the President in agreeing to the bills passed by the state assemblies. Justice JB Pardwala and R. A division bench of Mahadevan caught that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s withdrawal of 10 state bills was “illegal” And “wrong”. Fragrant decision The potential courses of action for the Governor and the President were once outlined after being in front of him for his consent once, although the Constitution does not specify the deadline. The decision established a long -awaited and very necessary clarity on many questions. Now, Center, through a presidential contextHe has brought all these questions again to court, demanding its ‘opinion’ under Article 143. The power of governors is a very controversial question. In recent years, the increased shamelessness of some governors has produced more poor blood between the Center and the states, and has reduced the mandate of the states for governance. The court’s verdict took into account the reports of several decisions, committees, who investigated the work of Indian federalism, and the Constituent Assembly argued to reach a firm conclusion that the governors or the President did not have arbitrary powers to implement the law made by an elected assembly indefinitely.

The Governor is the eccentric appointments of the Center, and the constitution does not do them with infinite powers, at least to weaken the elected assembly. The Center could use the court’s decision to stop the dispute once and for all. This may feel necessary, bringing constitutional amendments to suit the court’s decision. Instead, the Center is underlining questions that have already been decided through a presidential context. As constitutional scholars have reported, an opinion given by the court does not end the court’s decision. If it was only clarity that the Center wanted, it could be sought through a review petition and other installed procedures. By choosing the unusual path of the reference of the President, the Center is indicating the intention of looking for the powers used through the governors, that it was not given by the manufacturers of the Constitution. The court’s verdict provided a sound framework for consensus on the role of the governor. The center must accept this, and if all are required, call a meeting of Chief Ministers and political party representatives to resolve any other residual issues.