Why did the Supreme Court say that there is no question of Tamil Nadu Governor referring 10 're-enacted' Bills to the President

The Supreme Court stated various reasons for ruling that the Tamil Nadu Governor does not have the authority to refer 10 're-enacted' Bills to the President. Here are the key points: 1. Lack of actual reconsideration: The court noted that the Governor had not truly reconsidered the Bills. Re-enacting the same legislations without substantial changes did not qualify as actual reconsideration. 2. Governor's limited power: The Governor's power to refer Bills to the President is limited to cases where there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses of the state legislature. Since the Bills in question were not returned with any objections or sent for reconsideration, the Governor lacked the necessary grounds to refer them. 3. Erosion of legislative sovereignty: The court expressed concerns that allowing the Governor to refer Bills without a genuine difference of opinion could undermine the legislative sovereignty of the state assembly. 4. Constitutional boundaries: The ruling stressed the importance of upholding the constitutional boundaries between the executive and legislative branches of government, asserting that the Governor's referral power should be exercised within its intended scope. Overall, the court concluded that the Tamil Nadu Governor did not possess the authority to refer the 're-enacted' Bills to the President as there was no genuine difference of opinion necessitating such actions.