The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and all the State Governments on the Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the powers of the Governor and the President concerning power to assent on Bills.
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar slated the hearing for July 29. The bench will decide how the hearing will take place in mid-August and will appoint nodal officers for the same.
During the brief hearing, the bench requested Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist the Court in the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he will be appearing for the Union of India.
Representing Kerala, Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal informed the Court that the State would challenge the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the issues raised were already addressed in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case and said the State would also contest the maintainability.
Also read
- 'Digital arrest scams require immediate attention': Supreme Court assigns CBI to lead the charge against cyber rackets
- Who is Maulana Mahmood Madani? Jamiat leader stokes row over remarks on Supreme Court and 'jihad'
- SC asks Samay Raina, other comedians to host disabled people twice a month; netizens react
President Droupadi Murmu has referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on whether the court can invoke its inherent powers under Article 142 to set timelines or dictate the procedure for the President and Governors when handling State Bills submitted for assent or reserved for consideration.
The Reference was made to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking clarification on the constitutional choices available to a Governor when a Bill is presented for assent under Article 200.
Article 143 is rarely invoked and is reserved for matters of profound constitutional or national importance.
The President’s decision to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion stems from an April 8 ruling by a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The judgment came in response to a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged the Governor’s prolonged delay in granting assent to 10 Bills that had been re-passed by the State Assembly, as well as his subsequent move to reserve them for Presidential consideration. In its ruling, the Court deemed the Governor’s actions unconstitutional and, invoking Article 142, established timelines for the President and Governors to act on State legislation.
The court said the president must decide within three months of receiving a bill from a governor, as it laid down such a timeline for the first time. It asked that the president’s office convey reasons to the concerned state if there is any delay beyond this period.
The judgment drew sharp criticism from former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who questioned the Supreme Court’s authority to issue directions to the President. He went so far as to liken the Court’s use of Article 142 to wielding a nuclear missile within the judiciary’s arsenal.
The referral, a rare exercise of presidential prerogative, seeks the Court’s advisory opinion on matters of profound constitutional significance, particularly the judiciary’s authority to prescribe timelines for the President’s actions.