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
India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
No protest, slogans in Madhya Pradesh assembly, Congress slams speaker's move
Ahead of the Madhya Pradesh Assembly's monsoon session beginning on July 28, a fresh order issued by the Speaker, Narendra Singh Tomar, has banned all forms of protests and sloganeering by legislators inside the Assembly premises. The directive, passed under Rule 94(2), prohibits MLAs from holding any demonstrations or raising slogans within the Assembly Congress party, which had planned to raise several public-centric issues including unemployment, poor law and order, bad road conditions, and corruption during the upcoming session, has strongly opposed the move. With this ban in place, the party's legislators will no longer be able to protest or raise their voices inside the to the directive, Leader of the Opposition Umang Singhar alleged that the Speaker acted under pressure from the ruling government. 'Today, under pressure from the government, the Speaker has stopped legislators from protesting and raising the voice of the people inside the Assembly premises. In fact, the opposition has been continuously demanding that Assembly proceedings be made live. Instead of allowing transparency, the Speaker, under government pressure, is now preventing MLAs from even raising public issues,' said also emphasised the constitutional rights of elected representatives. 'It is important to remember that Article 194 of the Constitution grants special powers to legislators, which allow them to raise public interest issues in the House, express their views, and demand answers from the government. The government, which often presents false and misleading data in the Assembly, is now trying to avoid being exposed by pressuring the Speaker into issuing such orders and regulations. This is a direct attack on democracy, " Singhar added.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Madhya Pradesh
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Life term or 7-yr jail: SC gives man, 67, choice in 1979 college clash verdict
NEW DELHI: Some may call it a burning example of a snail-paced justice delivery system while others may term it as "law catching up with the culprit when he is at his weakest". However one may describe it, a person who committed the crime as a hot-headed college student, now dreads spending the rest of his life as an ailing senior citizen behind bars. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The SC has now given him the option between life term or seven years in jail. A union election-related fight between two students of LokManya Inter College in Deoria district of in 1979 led to 21-year-old Hari Shankar Rai stabbing a 19-year-old Krishna Kumar, who died of injuries on Dec 14, 1979. The trial court in 1983 found Rai guilty under Section 304-I of IPC and sentenced him to four-year imprisonment. A person lost his life, there should be adequate punishment for the crime: SC The Allahabad HC took 41 years to decide the appeal filed by the state challenging the trial court decision and seeking his conviction for murder. Rai had appealed against his conviction. In May last year, the HC found the evidence strong enough to convict Rai under Section 302 and awarded life imprisonment. Rai appealed against the HC judgment before the SC. A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran told the 67-year-old Rai that even if his conviction for murder is altered to that under Section 304-I, he cannot escape with a punishment of mere four years imprisonment. "A person lost his life and whatever may be, there should be adequate punishment for the crime," the CJI said. His counsel said the man is now 67-year-old suffering from ailments and pleaded for mercy on the ground that his wife is suffering from cancer, needing constant care. But the bench remained firm and refused to grant him bail during the pendency of his appeal in the SC. Refusing to show mercy and warning the convict's counsel that arguing for acquittal, in the face of a well-reasoned HC judgment, would result in dismissal of the appeal, CJI Gavai said, "If you are agreeable, we will convert the conviction under Sec 302 to that under Sec 304-I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) with seven year imprisonment." SC also asked the state counsel Tulika Mukherjee to take instructions regarding the present relationship between the families of the victim and the accused.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
