Since you have provided the title "Article 111 in Constitution of India" and the court as "Constitution Article" with the date "26 January 1950", I will assume you are asking for an explanation of Article 111 of the Indian Constitution, rather than a specific court case. Article 111 is not a court case; it is a constitutional provision. Therefore, I will provide a summary as if it were a case analyzing the provision itself.

Short Summary

Article 111 of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for the President's assent to Bills passed by the Parliament. It specifies that a Bill must be presented to the President after being passed by both Houses of Parliament. The President has the power to grant assent, withhold assent, or return the Bill (if it is not a Money Bill) to the Parliament for reconsideration. If the Parliament passes the Bill again, with or without amendments, the President is obligated to grant assent.

Facts

Article 111 is a foundational provision within the Indian Constitution, establishing the legislative process's final step. It defines the President's role in either approving or returning legislation passed by the Parliament. The article is crucial for maintaining the balance of power between the legislature and the executive branches of the Indian government.

Issues

The central issue addressed by Article 111 is the extent and nature of the President's power over legislation passed by the Parliament. Key questions include:

• What are the limits on the President's power to withhold assent?
• Under what circumstances can the President return a Bill for reconsideration?
• What is the President's obligation if the Parliament re-passes the Bill?

Petitioner's Arguments

(In the context of interpreting Article 111, the "petitioner's arguments" would represent a perspective arguing for a broader interpretation of Presidential powers.)

A broader interpretation might argue that the President's power to withhold assent, though limited, is a vital check on the legislature. The President should have the discretion to ensure the Bill aligns with the Constitution's spirit and the nation's best interests.

Respondent's Arguments

(Conversely, the "respondent's arguments" would advocate for a narrower interpretation, emphasizing Parliamentary sovereignty.)

A narrower interpretation would emphasize the Parliament's sovereignty. The President's role is primarily to ensure procedural correctness and constitutional compliance. The power to return a Bill is limited, and the obligation to grant assent after re-passage reinforces the Parliament's ultimate authority.

Court's Reasoning

(Since this is not a specific court case, this section describes the general understanding and application of Article 111 as interpreted through constitutional practice.)

The understanding of Article 111 has evolved through constitutional conventions and scholarly interpretations. The President is generally expected to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. While the President can return a Bill for reconsideration, this power is not absolute. The President is bound to give assent if the Bill is passed again by the Parliament. This reflects the principle of parliamentary democracy where the elected representatives have the final say in law-making.

Conclusion

Article 111 defines the President's role in the legislative process. The President can grant assent, withhold assent once (for non-money bills), or return a Bill for reconsideration. However, the President is constitutionally bound to grant assent if the Bill is passed again by the Parliament, thereby upholding the supremacy of the Parliament in legislative matters.