Examine the following statements. Statement-I : The Courts are prohibited to inquire to the advice given by the Ministers to the Governor Statement-II : The Ministers have no legal responsibility as per the constitutional provision. In the above context, which one of the following is correct?
Statement Analysis: Ministers and Governor's Advice
Statement-I Analysis: Court's Inquiry Prohibition
Statement-I asserts that Courts are prohibited from inquiring into advice given by Ministers to the Governor. This is consistent with Article 163(3) of the Constitution of India. This article explicitly states that the question of whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into by any court.
Therefore, Statement-I is correct.
Statement-II Analysis: Ministers' Legal Responsibility
Statement-II claims that Ministers have no legal responsibility as per constitutional provisions. While ministers hold significant political responsibility to the legislature, the constitutional framework provides certain protections regarding the advice they tender. Specifically, the non-justiciability of advice under Article 163(3) implies that courts cannot directly scrutinize or pass judgment on the advice itself. In this context, the statement can be interpreted as referring to the absence of direct legal enforceability or judicial accountability concerning the *advice* tendered, emphasizing political accountability over direct legal liability for such advice.
Therefore, Statement-II is considered correct within this specific constitutional interpretation.
Relationship Between Statements
While both statements are factually correct regarding constitutional provisions concerning Ministers and the Governor:
- Statement-I addresses a specific procedural bar: courts cannot investigate the advice given.
- Statement-II makes a broader claim about the nature of ministerial responsibility concerning legal aspects, likely related to the justiciability of their advice.
Statement-II is not the direct explanation for Statement-I. The prohibition on court inquiry (Statement-I) is a specific rule, whereas the nature of ministerial responsibility (Statement-II) is a broader principle. Although related, Statement-II does not provide the direct reasoning *why* courts are prohibited from inquiry; rather, Article 163(3) itself provides that reason.
Conclusion
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I.
Important Questions from Governor
Under which Article of the Indian Constitution, the Governor reserves a Bill passed by the State Legislature for President's consideration?
- Which of the following is not correct about the Governor of Madhya Pradesh?
Which of the following statements is/are true about Governor’s power for assent to Bill?
(i) The Governor can reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
(ii) He can assent the Bill but he cannot withhold the assent.
(iii) When a Bill is likely to affect the powers of High Courts of state the Governor must reserve it for the consideration of President.
Assertion [A] and Reason [R] question Type :
Assertion [A] : The emoluments and allowances of the Governor shall not be diminished during his term of office.
Reason [R] : Where the same person is appointed as Governor of two or more states, the emoluments and allowances payable to the Governor shall be allocated among the states in such proportion as the President may by order determine.
