SC agrees to address 14 posers by Murmu on timelines for governors, President to clea
SC agrees to address 14 posers by Murmu on timelines for governors, President to clear bills
M.U.H
23/07/202525
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine President Droupadi Murmu's reference on 14 questions on the issue of timelines prescribed by it to State governors and President while dealing with the bills passed by the assembly.
The five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, during a brief hearing, issued a notice to the Centre and all the states and sought their detailed responses by July 29, next Tuesday, on the Presidential reference whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by assembly.
The CJI-led bench made it clear that the court will seek the help and assistance of the Attorney General (AG), the top law officer of the Centre, R Venkataramani in the case.
The other four judges -- besides the CJI -- who were a part of the bench of the top court were Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar.
The apex Court also said, it would examine whether the exercise of discretion by Governors and the President on Bills can be subjected to judicially enforceable timelines. It fixed the matter for further hearing to August 29.
During the hearing, when Senior Advocate P Wilson, for Tamil Nadu govt, submitted that the matter would directly affect his clients, the Chief Justice quickly said, "The issue concerns not only the state (of Tamil Nadu) but the entire country."
Then Wilson argued that the reference is already addressed by previous judgments from this Honorable Court and that Tamil Nadu objects to the maintainability of the reference.
Senior lawyer, K K Venugopal, representing the state of Kerala, raised objections regarding the maintainability. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, asserted that all issues related to the TN Governor's case have been resolved. Senior advocate, Rakesh Diwedi questioned how Article 131 applies to a dispute between the Governor and the state of Tamil Nadu, stating that the reference on this ground is flawed.
Earlier on April 8, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, while hearing the case of State of Tamil Nadu against Governor of Tamil Nadu, held that a Governor must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a Bill, and within one month when a Bill is re-enacted.
The court, which had on April 8 rarely invoking its powers under under Article 142, declared that prolonged inaction by the Governor was "illegal" and directed that the ten pending Bills from Tamil Nadu be deemed to have received assent.
Challenging this verdict, President Murmu had moved the top court on May 13, with 14 crucial questions raised by her -- in the presidential reference -- challenging the SC's April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.
President Murmu, while exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), moved the apex court and said in the present circumstances, it appeared that 14 questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Out of 14 crucial questions, the majority and important were as follows.
1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
