NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Monday swiftly entertained President Droupadi Murmu 's reference questioning SC's power and jurisdiction to fix timelines for the President and governors in granting, declining or withholding assent to bills passed by assemblies while brushing aside 'maintainability' objections by Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar issued notice to the Union and state govts on the presidential reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution which seeks the SC's opinion on the correctness of the April 8 judgment of an SC bench led by Justice J B Pardiwala granting deemed assent to Tamil Nadu bills using the SC's exclusive powers under Art 142.
The bench said it would post preliminary hearing on July 29 to fix a schedule for detailed hearing on issues raised by the President.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, for Kerala, and P Wilson raised the issue of maintainability of the reference. The bench said all questions raised in the reference were open for consideration. However, it said it would hear all parties on the issue of maintainability and asked Wilson not to raise it repeatedly.
The bench said attorney general R Venkataramani would assist the court while solicitor general Tushar Mehta would represent the Union govt. On the opposite side were senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi, Gopal Subramanium and Rakesh Dwivedi.
TOI was the first to report on May 15 about the President sending a reference to the SC for its opinion on the contentious issue of judiciary stepping into the domain of the executive, especially when the Constitution gave no power to the SC to grant deemed assent on behalf of the governor to bills.
The reference had said Articles 200 and 201, applicable to governors and the President respectively, “does not stipulate any timeframe or procedure” to be followed by them while considering grant or refusal of assent to a bill passed by an assembly. “The exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers,” the reference had said. Article 200 mandates the governor, on presentation of a bill passed by an assembly, to grant assent or ‘as soon as possible’ return the bill, excluding money bills, for reconsideration by the House. And when the reconsidered bill is presented to the governor, he “shall not withhold assent”, the provision says.
However, when a governor reserves a bill for consideration of the President, she under Article 201 is mandated to declare whether she assents to the bill or withholds it. If she directs the governor to return the bill for reconsideration of the House, then upon reconsideration within six months, it “shall be presented again to the President for assent”. It does not fix any timeline for the President.
Critical of the SC using its Article 142 powers to rule that the 10 bills pending with the TN governor were deemed to have been assented to, the President had said, “The concept of a deemed assent of the President and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the President and the governor.”
A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar issued notice to the Union and state govts on the presidential reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution which seeks the SC's opinion on the correctness of the April 8 judgment of an SC bench led by Justice J B Pardiwala granting deemed assent to Tamil Nadu bills using the SC's exclusive powers under Art 142.
The bench said it would post preliminary hearing on July 29 to fix a schedule for detailed hearing on issues raised by the President.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, for Kerala, and P Wilson raised the issue of maintainability of the reference. The bench said all questions raised in the reference were open for consideration. However, it said it would hear all parties on the issue of maintainability and asked Wilson not to raise it repeatedly.
The bench said attorney general R Venkataramani would assist the court while solicitor general Tushar Mehta would represent the Union govt. On the opposite side were senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi, Gopal Subramanium and Rakesh Dwivedi.
TOI was the first to report on May 15 about the President sending a reference to the SC for its opinion on the contentious issue of judiciary stepping into the domain of the executive, especially when the Constitution gave no power to the SC to grant deemed assent on behalf of the governor to bills.
The reference had said Articles 200 and 201, applicable to governors and the President respectively, “does not stipulate any timeframe or procedure” to be followed by them while considering grant or refusal of assent to a bill passed by an assembly. “The exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers,” the reference had said. Article 200 mandates the governor, on presentation of a bill passed by an assembly, to grant assent or ‘as soon as possible’ return the bill, excluding money bills, for reconsideration by the House. And when the reconsidered bill is presented to the governor, he “shall not withhold assent”, the provision says.
However, when a governor reserves a bill for consideration of the President, she under Article 201 is mandated to declare whether she assents to the bill or withholds it. If she directs the governor to return the bill for reconsideration of the House, then upon reconsideration within six months, it “shall be presented again to the President for assent”. It does not fix any timeline for the President.
Critical of the SC using its Article 142 powers to rule that the 10 bills pending with the TN governor were deemed to have been assented to, the President had said, “The concept of a deemed assent of the President and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the President and the governor.”
You may also like
Ozzy Osbourne funeral plans after Black Sabbath frontman made feelings clear
IND vs ENG 4th Test: Who Is Anshul Kamboj? Meet Team India's Newest Test Debutant
World IVF Day 2025: Full stop on fertility, why is there no talk about it…if you don't go on time then you will have to regret it
Pregnant Katherine Ryan shares huge update on having fifth baby
Eerie abandoned city of pristine hotels frozen in time for 30 years
