CJI-led Bench to hear Prez reference on deadline for assent to Bill on July 22

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

Headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, the Bench also comprises 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.

Can timelines be imposed, asks Murmu

• In a five-page reference, President Droupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court whether time limits can be imposed and manner of exercise of powers prescribed through judicial orders.
• The SC, in its April 8 verdict, restricted the President’s discretionary powers on Bills referred by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution and set a 3-month deadline for her to decide on the Bills

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 deadline 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 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.”

Top News