SC to hear Presidential Reference on deadline for assent to state Bills on July 22

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will take up the Presidential Reference on issues arising out of the top court’s recent verdict setting a deadline for assent to state Bills for hearing on July 22.

Headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, the Bench will also comprise Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.

Invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu had in May sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 questions arising out of its April 8 verdict fixing deadlines for Governors and the President to take a call on Bills passed by state Assemblies.

In an unprecedented verdict, the apex court had restricted the President’s discretionary powers on Bills referred by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution and set a three-month timeframe for her to decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration.

Reserving a Bill on grounds such as “personal dissatisfaction of the governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations” is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone, the top court had said.

Murmu invoked Article 143 of the Constitution — a rarely used provision under which the President is empowered to consult the top court and seek its opinion on questions of law or fact.

The Supreme Court’s opinion on a Reference under Article 143 is not binding on the President and it’s not a binding law within the meaning of Article 141. It’s open to the top court to answer the reference or not. However, in case it does not want to answer the reference, the court has to give reasons.

The Presidential Reference was made in the wake of severe criticism of the verdict by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar who questioned the rationale behind the Supreme Court prescribing timelines for the President and the Governor in the absence of any such provisions under the Constitution.

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court had on April 8 set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state Assembly, terming it “illegal and erroneous”.

Exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench had declared that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.

While restricting discretionary powers of the President, a Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala had said, “The President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”

“Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a Bill is presented to him (her) for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit (of three months) then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court,” the Bench, which also included Justice R Mahadevan, had said.

However, Murmu has sought to know if in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, the Supreme Court could impose timelines on exercise of powers by the two constitutional functionaries.

The President has asked the Supreme Court to clarify if its powers under Article 142 were limited to matters of procedural law or extended to issuing directions or orders contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or any law in force.

She has also raised the issue of states approaching the top court under Article 32 meant for enforcement of fundamental rights and not under Article 131 which deals with the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states; or a dispute between two or more states.

She sought to know of the Constitution Bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution.

Murmu has asked the Supreme Court to opine if the powers of Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201, respectively, with regard to assent to Bills passed by state Assemblies were justiciable and if Article 361 operated as absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the Governor’s actions under Article 200.

India