'TN Governor Judgment Caused Confusion, Authoritative Opinion Needed' : Supreme Court Holds Presidential Reference Maintainable

While holding that the President's Reference made on the issues relating to Bills' assent was maintainable, the Supreme Court observed that the judgment of a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case - which laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act on Bills - had created doubts and confusions.The 5-judge bench also observed that some of the conclusions in the Tamil Nadu case were contrary to precedents.States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Punjab had objected to the maintainability of the Reference, arguing that the questions raised were already answered by the judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu case. They also argued that the Reference was an "appeal in disguise" and that Article 143 of the Constitution cannot be used to overrule a judgment.At the outset, the bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai distinguished the present Reference from the previous 15 Presidential References, by observing that this raised issues relating to the day-to-day functioing of constitutional functionaries. Hence, this is a "functional reference", the Court observed, as it "strikes at the root of the continuation of our republican and democratic way, and the Constitution's federal character."The Court acknowledged that the issues raised in the Reference arose in the aftermath of the judgment in the Tamil Nadu case. The Court added that a "state of doubt, or confusion" has arisen in relation to various issues concluded in the said judgment, such as - the options before a Governor under Article 200, the prescription of time limits under Articles 200 and 201, whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising such decision under Article 200, the justiciability of the decision made by the Governor and President under these Articles, whether Bills can be passed and enacted as law by way of 'deemed assent'."A perusal of the decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), would reveal that at least some of the conclusions are in variance with earlier decisions, although the decision in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), seeks to reconcile this departure from earlier precedents. In this context, this Court finds that an authoritative opinion of this Court is mandated since the law on the functions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201, cannot be left in a state of confusion, as it would impede smooth functioning of the Constitution," the Court said.The Court observed that it has an "institutional responsibility" to answer the queries raised by the "highest constitutional authority." "The nature of this reference, therefore, places a duty on this Court, to answer some, if not all, the questions so referred," the Court said.The Court observed that the questions raised by the President does not require it to sit in appeal over the decision in the Tamil Nadu case."The range of questions referred by the Hon'ble President do not require this Court to sit in appeal over the decision in State of Tamil Nadu (supra) but may require us to consider the view of law expressed, differently. The reference raises pertinent questions of constitutional law, that hold significant public importance, relating to the interpretation of the Articles 200, 201, 142, 143, 145(3) and 361. The questions do not require this Court to vacate, amend, or modify the final relief granted by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), and instead, at the most, seek clarification on the propositions of law laid down in it, which have ramifications for the governance of all States, i.e., beyond the parties that were before it in that lis," it expressed.It also recorded the submission of the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, and Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, that the reference seeks clarifications for "future governance" and not the setting aside of the judgment in the Tamil Nadu case. They also clarified that the relief granted in Tamil Nadu case is being duly accepted.The judgment also referred to the view expressed by Justice YV Chandrachud in In Re: Special Courts Bill that while answering a reference, the Court may even go so far as to “overrule, if necessary”, the view taken earlier by this very Court. Also, in the 2G Reference (In Re : Natural Resources Allocation), it was held that an earlier precedent can be overruled while answering a reference. In Presidential references, previous judgments can be explained, clarified or read down."In light of the findings elaborated hereinabove, we find that the preliminary objections made in relation to similarity with the findings, or issues raised in State of Tamil Nadu (supra) ought to be dismissed at the threshold, and the various questions of constitutional significance referred by the Hon'ble President merit our comprehensive consideration, within the contours and scope of jurisdiction already laid out by this Court in a catena of judgments, in relation to...

'TN Governor Judgment Caused Confusion, Authoritative Opinion Needed' : Supreme Court Holds Presidential Reference Maintainable

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

The Court observed that it was a "functional reference" relating to the day-to-day functioning of Constitutional authorities.

Tags