Can SC fix timeline for President, governor nod to bills? Centre, states' view sought
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.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Many Filipinos don't know about this!
Sunlife.com.ph
Read More
Undo
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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trial court not the first stop for investigation, says Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: SC has barred trial courts from directly entertaining complaints and ordering police to investigate them by ruling that prior to moving court for probing a cognisable offence, a person must approach jurisdictional police for registration of FIR. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti said, "A magistrate ought not ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154 (3) of the code." Writing the judgment in a cross-case, Justice Mithal said magistrates must ask the informant to first approach the officer-in-charge of the police station and then the superintendent of police. "It is well recognized in law that the person aggrieved must first exhaust the alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching the court of law. In other words, he cannot ordinarily approach the court directly," he said. The bench did a conjoint reading of sections 154, 156 and 190 of the CrPC and said, "It is crystal clear that an informant who wants to report about a commission of a cognisable offence has to, in the first instance, approach the officer-in-charge of the police station for setting the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR." "However, if such information is not accepted by the officer-in-charge of the police station and he refuses to record it, the remedy of the informant is to approach the SP concerned. It is only subsequent to availing the above opportunities that if he is not successful, he may approach the magistrate under section 156(3) of the CrPC for necessary action or of taking cognisance in accordance with section 190 of the CrPC," the bench said. SC said if the information about a cognisable offence is not being recorded by the officer-in-charge of the police station or even by the SP, then the person aggrieved or the informant "may move the court the magistrate concerned to get the FIR registered and lodged with the concerned police station."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SP MP demands rollback of school merger
Lucknow: Samajwadi Party MP from Machhlishahr Priya Saroj has written to the Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan demanding review of the policy of 'integration of schools' in Uttar Pradesh and cancellation of the merger process. In her letter, Saroj said that the policy of integration of schools was being followed in Uttar Pradesh, which seems to be against the basic spirit of the Right to Education Act (RTE Act). "Under RTE Act, there is a provision that every child between the age of 6 to 14 years should be provided free and compulsory education within one kilometre of the nearest primary school from residence. If no school is available within a radius of one kilometre, then it is the responsibility of the govt to ensure admission of the child in the nearest school," she said. She said the current policy of the UP govt was violating the spirit of the Act. "This is hindering access to school for many children, leading more dropouts. Jobs of 2.5 lakh teachers and school staff of UP are also at risk," she said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Swami Karpatri true son of soil, Sanatan Dharm'
Lucknow: Paying tribute to seer and revivalist Swami Karpatri Maharaj on his birth anniversary, former Union minister Shahnawaz Hussain remembered his contribution to Sanatan Dharm and demanded a nationwide ban on cow slaughter. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The programme, organised by Yuva Chetna at the Constitution Club in Delhi, was inaugurated by Swami Abhishek Brahmachari. BJP national general secretary , Union ministers Jayant Chaudhary and Shobha Karandlaje, former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, MP Neeraj Shekhar, Delhi Assembly Speaker Vijender Gupta, BJP national spokesperson Sanjay Mayukh, and Yuva Chetna national convenor Rohit Kumar Singh were present. Swami Abhishek called Swami Karpatri the "true son of Sanatan Dharm and the country", lauding his contribution to religion and society. Arun Singh praised his efforts in preserving Indian culture, while Shobha Karandlaje criticized the Congress for opposing Sanatan Dharm. Ranjan Gogoi paid floral tributes while Neeraj Shekhar, Vijender Gupta, and Mayukh praised Swami Karpatri's legacy. Rohit Kumar Singh called him a cultural ambassador and vowed to expose Congress's "anti-national" policies. The event concluded with the felicitation of Justice Gogoi.
