New Delhi, Jul 22 (PTI) In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses of the Centre and all states on the Presidential reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by assembly.
Observing that the issues raised in the presidential reference will affect “the entire country”, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai sought the replies in a week and fixed the reference for fixing timelines and other procedural details on July 29.
“There are issues of interpretation of the Constitution. We have requested the Attorney General to assist us. Issue notice to the Union and all state governments. The Solicitor General will appear for the Union. All state governments be served through emails. List it on next Tuesday. Notice be also served to all standing counsel,” ordered the bench which also comprised justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar.
During a brief hearing, senior advocates KK Venugopal and P Wilson, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, opposed the reference and questioned its maintainability.
These objections can be raised later, the CJI said, adding the matter will be taken up in mid-August.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies.
Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court “if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon”.
The President’s decision comes in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in a matter over the powers of Governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government.
The verdict for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor, President under Article 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
Article 200 deals with situations with regard to passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent, or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration.
Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President’s consideration by the Governor.
The rules prescribe for the review petitions to be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench.
Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of Governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for President’s consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon Governor for the exercise of constitutional options.
The President said similarly Article 201, which prescribes the powers of President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent, therefrom does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution.
President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed.
“Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor,” the reference of May 13 said.
President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court.
The verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that Governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers.
It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration.PTI SJK MNL SJK DV DV
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.