SC issues notice to Centre, states over President's reference on timelines for assent on Bills
A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, which took up the matter, said it will fix timelines for the hearing next week. CJI Gavai said, 'Tentatively, we propose to start (the hearing) somewhere in mid-August.'
The counsels appearing for Kerala and Tamil Nadu said they propose to question the maintainability of the reference. The CJI asked them to reserve their arguments for the hearing.
In the reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Murmu has posed 14 questions over the top court's April 8 verdict. The President sought to know whether the actions of governors and the President are justiciable (whether courts can look into it) and whether such timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution.
The reference pointed out that 'there are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable or not'. Under Article 145 (3), when the President makes a reference for the court's opinion, it is placed before a five-judge bench.
On April 8, the Supreme Court had set a timeline for governors to act on pending Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should take a decision on the Bills, reserved for consideration by the Governor, within three months from the date on which such reference is received. Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no timeframe has been set for a President's decision.
The Supreme Court had said that 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned.
The April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, headed by Justice J B Pardiwala, set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills for consideration of the President in November 2023 after they had already been reconsidered by the Assembly, and said that the action was illegal and erroneous.
In her reference to the apex court, President Murmu sought to know: 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?'
Article 201 prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills or withholding assent therefrom, but 'does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options.'
President Murmu pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the Governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, 'does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options'.
'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 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?' the President sought to know.
Murmu asked whether 'in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President', she 'is required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?'
'Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior to the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?'
The President also asked: 'Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?'
Some of the other questions referred to the top court are: 'What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?; Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?'
The reference pointed out that the Constitution enlists numerous instances where the assent of the President has to be obtained before a legislation can take effect in a state.
It said that 'the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, inter alia being federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers'.
The President said, 'States are frequently approaching the Supreme Court of India invoking Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) of the Constitution of India (and not Article 131 which states that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over legal issues between states or between states and the Union), raising issues which by their very nature are federal issues involving interpretation of, inter alia, the Constitution of India.'
The reference also said that 'the contours and scope of provisions contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also needs an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.' Article 142 refers to the enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex court.
The President also said that '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'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
Transport & environment depts studying ban on overage vehicles, to submit report
Delhi govt asked its transport and environment departments to study the current guidelines on end-of-life vehicles, enforcement against overaged vehicles and the reaction of the public and stakeholders to the action. Govt will also assess the removal of vehicles so far and the impact of this on air quality levels, officials said on Thursday. One official added, "Govt may then file a review petition on the policy in the Supreme Court based on the findings and reports submitted by the two departments." Environment minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said, "The environment and transport departments are studying, separately, the guidelines, their impact on the public and the benefits and consequences on ground and air quality levels. Once they complete their studies and submit the report, govt will take further decisions on filing a petition in the court." The departments will also mention the other measures they took in the last five months to curb air pollution in the city and their results, said a govt official. A 2014 order of the National Green Tribunal also prohibits the parking of vehicles aged over 15 years in public places. Following the NGT and Supreme Court's order, in 2021-22, the transport department began de-registering petrol and diesel vehicles that had completed, respectively, 15 years and 10 years of life. Then in 2023, the transport department launched an enforcement drive against these overaged vehicles found parked in public places or running on the roads. However, several vehicle owners moved court, following which govt was asked to come up with proper guidelines to handle ELVs in Delhi. The current govt relaunched the enforcement drive in July and banned provision of fuel to ELVs, both cars, trucks and bikes. However, after facing public heat the drive was halted on grounds of "critical operational and infrastructural challenges". Sirsa also wrote to pollution watchdog Commission for Air Quality Management pleading the city authorities could not accommodate the panel's imposition of the anti-ELV measure. After this, lieutenant governor VK Saxena wrote to CM Rekha Gupta, asking Delhi govt to seek a review petition before the apex court against its 2018 order restricting petrol vehicles beyond 15 years and diesel vehicles beyond 10 years from plying in Delhi-NCR. "How can a vehicle banned as unfit in Delhi run lawfully in other cities? This is against equal treatment," LG queried in the letter. Citing equality and socio-economic reasons, Saxena underlined that such rules should be proportionate, non-arbitrary and not solely based on a rigid age-based classification. He also said that the ban should be put on hold unless it was implemented across NCR. He sought a comprehensive air pollution mitigation plan within three months. Talking on similar lines, Gupta said, "Just as we requested CAQM to review its decision on overage vehicles, we will approach the Supreme Court to give us a detailed overview of our preparation in the fight against pollution, and we will let the court know of public grievances. We will fight for the rights of people.">
India.com
8 minutes ago
- India.com
Officers Associated With Ex-Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Sent Back To Parent Cadre
New Delhi: Just three days after Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar stepped down from his post, his secretariat has been shut down and a majority of the government officers working with him have been repatriated to their respective parent cadres, two officials confirmed on Thursday. However, no rooms within the Vice Presidential enclave have been sealed, they added. A report by Hindustan Times noted that 'hardly a few government officers are remaining and they too are waiting for the orders to go back to their parent cadre,' according to an official familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The newly built Vice President's enclave includes a dedicated wing for the secretariat. Officers have gradually vacated the premises, and it has now been locked. 'The keys were handed over to the two under-secretaries,' said another official, also speaking anonymously. Among those who have exited are Dhankhar's secretary, officer on special duty, and principal private secretary, all of whom are Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers. 'It is nothing unusual as their appointment at the VP office was co-terminus with Dhankhar's tenure. Usually, officials are given 15 days to wrap up their work and report to their parent cadre. Some officials are still there, but soon, they too will go,' a government functionary explained, according to the report. As per protocol for former Vice Presidents, Dhankhar is now entitled to retain five personal staff members, whose salaries will be covered by the government, as well as a Type VIII bungalow or its equivalent anywhere in India. Being the first person to occupy the newly constructed Vice Presidential enclave, Dhankhar now has one month to vacate and move out. Sources said he began packing soon after submitting his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu on Monday evening. While the repatriation of officers after a constitutional authority vacates office is standard procedure, the rapid pace at which the staff exited and the secretariat was shut down has added weight to ongoing speculation that Dhankhar's resignation stemmed from growing tensions with the government. The 74-year-old cited medical reasons when he unexpectedly resigned on Monday, shortly after presiding over the opening day of the Monsoon Session in the Rajya Sabha. He had assumed the role of Vice President on 11 August 2022, succeeding M. Venkaiah Naidu. 'To prioritise health care and abide by medical advice, I hereby resign as Vice President of India, effective immediately, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution,' Dhankhar stated in his resignation letter to President Murmu. The report also highlighted possible friction between Dhankhar and the government, particularly surrounding the decision to admit an Opposition-backed motion in the Rajya Sabha for the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, even as a similar notice, endorsed by multiple parties, was introduced in the Lok Sabha. Following his resignation, Dhankhar has not granted meetings to political leaders wishing to see him, three senior political figures said. Those reportedly seeking an audience with him included Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge, NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) veteran Sharad Pawar, and some leaders from the Aam Aadmi Party, they added.
NDTV
8 minutes ago
- NDTV
President's Rule In Manipur To Be Extended, Amit Shah To Move Resolution In Rajya Sabha
Imphal: Union Home Minister Amit Shah has moved a statutory resolution in the Parliament seeking approval for the extension of the President's rule in Manipur for another six months. The Centre had imposed the President's rule in Manipur on February 13, three days after Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigned. It will now be extended till February 13, 2026, after Parliament's nod. The state assembly, which has a tenure till 2027, will remain under suspended animation. Manipur has been witnessing ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023, in which over 250 people have been killed. Officials, however, have said that there has been a significant decline in violence since the imposition of President's rule. The move by the Centre comes at a time when there has been a massive crackdown against recovering illegal weapons and the armed groups in the state. The Centre is now also focusing on the return and resettlement of the internally displaced people from both communities and aims to shut down relief camps by the end of this year. The extension of President's rule, however, has come as a setback to the Manipur unit of the BJP, which had been pushing for the reinstatement of a popular government. However, the 10 Kuki-Zo community MLAs have said that they want President's rule to continue until their core demand of a separate administration like a union territory is thoroughly discussed. The Centre is also engaged in back-channel talks with the civil society groups.
