SC Cites 'Advisory' Role In Presidential Reference, Refuses To Set Aside Verdict On Timelines
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to set aside its April 12 verdict, where it imposed deadlines on President Droupadi Murmu and Governors to clear bills passed by states. A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said the court would only act in an 'advisory" role and not sit in appeal.
The court's decision to impose deadlines on the President and Governors had raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for Governors and the President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies.
The five-judge bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice A Chandurkar, heard preliminary objections raised by advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, and advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu.
The court said it was only sitting in an advisory jurisdiction and not sitting in appeal over the case involving Tamil Nadu's ruling DMK and Governor RN Ravi over withholding consent on Bills passed by the State Assembly.
'We will be expressing just a view of law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case," said CJI Gavai in response to the objections by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
Discussions On Presidential Reference
In April, the Supreme Court passed a verdict, saying the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received, calling Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold Bills 'illegal".
It also said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration. This sparked questions over the jurisdiction of the judiciary over the executive.
President Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
The governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu argued that the questions raised in the Reference were substantially and directly answered by the judgment in the TN Governor case by the two-judge bench. They said President Murmu's reference under Article 143 cannot be invoked to revisit the issues already decided in a judgment.
Venugopal said the presidential evidence was an attempt to derail the verdict without filing a review. This was supported by Singhvi, who said that Article 143 cannot be used as an intra-court appeal; nor is it a substitute for review or curative powers.
Meanwhile, the Centre, in its written submission, has said that imposing fixed timelines on Governors and the President to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to 'constitutional disorder".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, supported the argument that the Supreme Court can revisit and even modify an earlier judgment while exercising Article 143.
'This is for the first time, the President felt functional disharmony arose and will arise because of no authoritative pronouncement," he said. 'There is a constitutional functional problem- how the governor and the President would act…the highest head of executive is seeking guidance, the judgments of five, three, and two have created a constitutional problem."
The Court will resume hearing tomorrow.
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Loading comments...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a minute ago
- The Hindu
Sambhal temple-mosque row: Court sets August 28 to hear case
A court in Chandausi on Thursday (August 21, 2025) fixed August 28 to hear the ongoing Shahi Jama Masjid-Harihar temple dispute. The matter was listed for hearing before civil judge (senior division) Aditya Singh. Advocate of the Hindu side, Gopal Sharma, told PTI that on Thursday, the opposite side filed an application saying that since this matter was pending in the Supreme Court, the present court did not have the jurisdiction to hear this case. The matter was then deferred to August 28. The Muslim side has challenged the maintainability of the case in the Allahabad High Court, but on May 19, the High Court upheld the trial court's order permitting a court-monitored survey and directed it to proceed with the matter. While talking to reporters, Shahi Jama Masjid's advocate Qasim Jamal confirmed filing the application and a judgment related to the Worship Act. It was directed till the Supreme Court heard the case, all religious matters will not be heard by any other court, he added. "Neither any case can be heard nor any action can be taken, when the order of the Supreme Court is still pending and a stay has been imposed till the next hearing," he said. Mr. Jamal added, "If this hearing takes place then it will be a violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines." The trial court, therefore, said any objection should be filed by August 28. The dispute dates back to November 19 last year, when Hindu petitioners, including advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, filed a suit in the Sambhal district court claiming the mosque was built over a pre-existing temple. A court-ordered survey was conducted on the same day (November 19), followed by another on November 24. The second survey on November 24 led to significant unrest in Sambhal, resulting in the death of four persons and injuries to 29 police personnel. The police booked SP MP Ziaur Rahman Barq and mosque committee head Zafar Ali in relation to the violence besides registering an FIR against 2,750 unidentified persons.
Mint
a minute ago
- Mint
VIDEO: Massive crowd gathers ahead of Vijay's TVK Maanadu in Madurai
Vijay's TVK Maanadu: Actor-turned-politician Vijay is set to address the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam's (TVK) second state conference in Madurai this evening, with thousands of party workers and supporters arriving in the city for what is being seen as a major show of strength ahead of the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. Actor and TVK president Vijay is scheduled to address the cadres during the party's second State conference at an open ground in Parapathi of Madurai district of Tamil Nadu. Why is today's Madurai conference significant for TVK? This is the second large-scale state gathering of TVK since its launch, and it comes at a crucial time as the party gears up for its first-ever Tamil Nadu Assembly poll contest in 2026. Vijay and his team are expected to use the event to consolidate support, energise cadres, and set the tone for a campaign that promises to challenge Tamil Nadu's traditional political order. What is Vijay's political pitch? At the launch of the party's exclusive membership app, 'Now TVK', on 13 August, Vijay compared the upcoming 2026 polls to two historic turning points in Tamil Nadu politics — 1967, when CN Annadurai's DMK rose to power, and 1977, when MG Ramachandran's AIADMK swept into office. 'In both these elections, newcomers opposed entrenched power and emerged victorious,' Vijay said, adding that his own party could script a similar chapter if it remains rooted in people's concerns. Quoting Annadurai, he urged TVK workers to 'go to people, live with them, learn from them and plan along with them.' How does Vijay plan to reach voters? The party's strategy has been branded as the 'Tamil Nadu in Victory Rally', under which cadres are tasked with reaching 'every town, street and house' to unite families as TVK members. The focus, Vijay has stressed, must be on grassroot-level engagement rather than mere political spectacle. What controversies has Vijay raised recently? The TVK leader has already sharpened his attack on the ruling MK Stalin-led DMK government, condemning the arrest of sanitation workers in Chennai. In a strongly worded post on X, Vijay called the action 'inhumane and anarchic,' describing it as an example of a 'fascist government' suppressing peaceful protests. Can Vijay replicate the success of Tamil Nadu's past film stars in politics? While Vijay draws frequent comparisons with leaders like Annadurai and MGR, analysts note a key difference: both those leaders had significant political experience before their decisive victories, whereas Vijay only formally entered politics in 2024. Nonetheless, the scale of mobilisation around today's Madurai conference signals that his appeal remains strong among a section of the electorate. What lies ahead? With the 2026 Assembly elections still a year away, TVK has time to expand its organisational reach across the state. The Madurai conference is expected to provide a glimpse into the party's electoral narrative — a mix of anti-establishment rhetoric, grassroots mobilisation, and Vijay's star power.
Scroll.in
a minute ago
- Scroll.in
Muslims in UP's Moradabad told not to name wedding bands after Hindu deities
The police in Uttar Pradesh's Moradabad have ordered Muslim wedding band operators not to name their bands after Hindu deities after a complaint was filed on the chief minister's portal, the Hindustan Times reported on Thursday. A complaint was registered by a lawyer on July 9, claiming that about 15 to 20 Muslim band operators in the district were running their businesses using the names of Hindu deities, the newspaper quoted unidentified police officers as saying. The complainant claimed that the practice hurt religious sentiments. Superintendent of Police (City) Kumar Ranvijay Singh told Amar Ujala that several band operators in the district were summoned on Tuesday and told to remove such names. 'All of them have said that they will remove the names,' he was quoted as saying. The complainant told the Hindustan Times that the wedding band industry in Moradabad was largely dominated by Muslims. 'Yet many of these establishments operate under Hindu names, including those of gods and goddesses,' he said. 'This is an attempt to distort identity,' he alleged. 'The chief minister [Adityanath] himself has called for action against such practices.' The action taken by the police based on his complaint was not discrimination, but 'legal action', he told the newspaper. This came a month after the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments directed eateries along the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage route to display quick response codes with their owners' identities. The matter was challenged in the Supreme Court, where a counsel for the Uttarakhand government reportedly claimed that the real problem was dhabas named 'Shiva Dhaba' or 'Parvati Dhaba' being run by Muslims. On July 22, the court refused to examine the legality of the directives issued by the two state governments. Similar orders were issued by Uttar Pradesh in 2024. The police in the state's Muzaffarnagar had claimed at the time that the decision was taken to ' avoid confusion ' among devotees who will travel on the route.
