Supreme Court Presidential Advisory Opinion on Article 200 Timeline Tamil Nadu vs Governor Judgment скачать в хорошем качестве

Supreme Court Presidential Advisory Opinion on Article 200 Timeline Tamil Nadu vs Governor Judgment

This video explains one of the most important Constitutional developments on Article 200, the role of Governors in withholding, delaying, or reserving Bills, and the Supreme Court’s authoritative opinion on the Presidential Reference (2024–25). The chain of events that changed Indian federalism: The Tamil Nadu vs Governor Case (2025) The Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme Court accusing the Governor of: Delaying bill assent for months/years Not returning bills “as soon as possible” Blocking legislative functioning The Supreme Court held that Governors cannot stall elected legislatures and must act with constitutional responsibility. Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court (Article 143) The President sought clarification on: What happens when a Bill is passed again by the Legislature? Can the Governor reserve such a re-passed Bill for the President? Does the Governor have any discretion after repassage? The Supreme Court gave its opinion: SUPREME COURT’S KEY OPINION (2024–25) Once a Bill is re-passed by the Legislature, the Governor MUST give assent. No discretion. No delay. No reservation. Governor cannot use Article 200 to sit on Bills indefinitely. “As soon as possible” means within a reasonable, constitutionally accountable timeframe — not months or years. Reserving a Bill for the President should be exceptional and not a political tool. Deliberate delay by the Governor amounts to a breakdown of constitutional machinery — triggering Article 356 concerns. What Article 200 Allows A Governor has four choices ONLY ONCE when a Bill is presented: Assent Withhold assent Return the Bill for reconsideration Reserve it for the President (very limited situations) But after the Bill is re-passed → No more choices. Only assent. ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapters 0:00 - Intro 2:39 - Federalism 8:42 - Article 200 & 111 10:52 - Parts of the Constitution 16:00 - Governor Assent Choices 17:56 - Tamil Nadu vs Governor 28:00 - Supreme court fixed Timeline 33:00 - Presidential Reference 38:00 - U turn in opinion on timeline -------------------------------------------------------------- Why This Case Matters Strengthens federalism Stops political misuse of the Governor’s office Protects legislative supremacy of elected assemblies Clarifies timelines and duties under Constitutional morality Critical for: UPSC GS-II Judiciary Mains & Prelims Law Optional LLB / LLM students CLAT PG / AILET PG Keywords Article 200 Governor, Tamil Nadu vs Governor case, Governor bill assent delay, Presidential reference Article 143, Supreme Court opinion Article 200, Governor re-passed bill assent, withholding assent India, constitutional breakdown Article 356, Governor vs State government, federalism in India, Constitution Supreme Court judgment, CLAT PG 2026, Judiciary preparation, TLOI Academy Hashtags #Article200 #SupremeCourtJudgment #TamilNaduVsGovernor #PresidentialReference #Article143 #UPSCPolity #JudiciaryPrep #CLATPG2026 #Federalism #ConstitutionalLaw #TLOIAcademy #CourtroomByTLOI