Supreme Court To Commence Hearing Of Presidential Reference On Bills' Timelines From August 19

The Supreme Court today(July 29) fixed August 19 as the date on which hearings will commence on the Presidential Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200(assent to Bills) and 201(bills reserved for consideration) of the Constitution.The Court also agreed to grant one hour first to the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to raise their preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Reference. After that, the Court will start hearing Attorney General and Union supporting the reference on 19, 20, 21, 26 of August. The parties opposing the reference are to be heard on 28, 2, 3 September and 9 September. Rejoinder, if any, would be heard on September 10.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 asked the parties to file the written submissions by August 12. Advocates Aman Mehta and Misha Rohatgi have been appointed as the nodal counsel on the side of the Union and the parties opposing reference, respectively, to prepare the compilations of either side.Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, for the State of Kerala, informed the Court that it has filed an application arguing that 11 out of 14 questions raised in the Reference have already been answered in the Tamil Nadu Governor matter, and there is an attempt to surpass the judgment of the Court by misusing Article 143.Appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Senior Advocates Dr AM Singhvi and P Wilson, also submitted that the Tamil Nadu Government has also filed a similar application challenging the validity of the Reference.BackgroundThe President made the reference following the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case, which set timelines for the Governor and the President to grant assent to the Bills as per Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively.In the Tamil Nadu case, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the Governor cannot exercise a “pocket veto” over the Bills passed by the legislative assembly, and fixed an upper limit of three months for the Governor's decision. If the Bill is reserved by the Governor for the President's assent, the President must act within 3 months, the Court further ruled.The Court also stated that if there is any breach of the timelines, the State Government would be entitled to seek a writ of mandamus from the Court. Allowing a petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court also declared that the ten bills, which the Governor had kept pending for over a year, had received deemed assent.What are the questions raised by the President?1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him 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 the 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?6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?7. 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?8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President 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?9. 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 into 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?10. 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?11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the...

Supreme Court To Commence Hearing Of Presidential Reference On Bills' Timelines From August 19

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags