Professors in the Law faculty of Delhi University where I study are not having a unanimous opinion on presidential powers...
Darn! u hav started using the big guns already
I am only using my little, humble knowledge that i gathered in college. And that was a long time back. Not fair, dude.
Anyway, the ambiguity is on how the president exercises his powers and not on the extent or limitations thereof. Any student of Constitution will tell the limitations. But the problem is how the president can maneuver within those limitations.
....the Presidential assent can only be overridden in case of a money bill not in a general bill.
President can't send a money bill for recommendation and hav to sign it the first time. He can send other bills for recommendation but will hav to sign the second time. He has no choice.
Naturally, he will have to sign it, but in what period?
There is no period defined....
Yes very true. But only in theory. When was the last time a president of India did that. Never. Not even APJ (office of profit bill was only delayed)
Many years ago a former chief justice of Pakistan provided the answer. He was asked by his country’s president (during that country’s initial experiment with democracy) whether he could constitutionally refuse to give his assent to a Bill passed by the National Assembly (Pakistan’s first constitution after independence was like ours — fashioned on the Westminster model). Chief Justice Munir’s answer went something like this: “If you think it is a matter of the gravest importance, and you cannot in all conscience accept the measure presented to you, you can, and you must (if you are true to your oath) refuse assent — but having refused assent you must then resign; the system must go on; people will know why you resigned, and will sort things out with their governments”.
Shamelessly plagiarized from an article by Fali S. Nariman
The President can refuse to sign a bill outright if Supreme Court backs him....President is automatically authorised to throw the bill in trash
I am not sure about this. I hav never heard of anything "automatic" about the presidentship, but most likely, SC can only advice the President. The president can send it back for review. This the best he can do. Or as you said, pocket veto, i.e. sit on it forever. Again thats theoretical.
As for Parliament and people's power being higher than Constitution,please read the jayalalitha case, wher SC held that COnst, even though amendable is still more powerful than parliament, which cannot tamper its basic skeleton.
Absolutely. But only in spirit. The parliament works within the framework of the Constitution. Of course. Suppose some wise govt decides to hav reservation on the basis of religion. What happens then. It can't. Unless of course it amends the constitution. In theory it can be done. But the furore will not let it happen. Thats the magic of parliamentary democracy. Political compulsion has its bad sides. It has its share of goods as well.
One more thing, Constitutional Amendment does not need a unanimous vote (100% yay and 0% nay) It just needs a 2/3 vote..
Thx for the correction. Appreciate it. Although, i will check on that once i am home.,
The important aspect is who appoints who and who removes who. President and Chief Justice are appointed by the parliament. They are also removed( read impeached ) by the parliament. But the members of the Parliament are appointed by us, no other authority can do that. They are also removed by us or by the opposition through "Vote of NO-CONFIDENCE". If someone's existence is dependent on another, how long and to what extent can the former preside over the later.
See, the point i am trying to make is, all that the president does can be done without him. All the so called checks and everything can be put in place without a president around. We really don't need a president at all.
