Centre should not have asked President to issue Reference, says Kerala
'The fact that the Council of Ministers advising the President disagree with or do not accept a judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court is no basis to exercise the power under Article 143 by advising the President to refer questions that are no longer res integra for this Court to decide. Such jurisdiction does not vest in this Court, nor can it be vested in it by the Council of Ministers under Article 143,' Kerala argued in its submissions prepared by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and advocate C.K. Sasi.
The State said the questions referred by the President were no longer res integra (an unaddressed question of law).
Kerala agreed with Tamil Nadu's stand that the April 8 judgment had comprehensively dealt with every single question of law raised in the Presidential Reference.
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is scheduled to hear the Reference from August 19, 2025.
The hearing would begin with Kerala and Tamil Nadu both raising preliminary objections before the five-judge Bench about the maintainability of the Presidential Reference.
'The power of the President to refer questions under Article 143 to the Supreme Court is contingent on the fact that 'a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise' and hence is not res integra. The questions, however, referred to this court ex facie show that no question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, as the very questions already stand conclusively and determinatively answered by the Supreme Court,' Kerala argued.
Besides, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have invoked Article 141 of the Constitution. Article 141 mandates that law laid down by the apex court in a judgment, in this case the Tamil Nadu Governor case verdict, is binding on the Council of Ministers.
An opinion rendered by a Constitution Bench under an advisory jurisdiction to a Presidential Reference would not supplant or override a binding judgment of the apex court.
'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by court in the Tamil Nadu case. It has thus accepted the judgment. The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference,' Kerala submitted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Voter Adhikar Yatra: Bihar minister takes dig at Rahul Gandhi; tells him to thank Nitish for smooth roads making 'big yatra' possible
Rahul Gandhi (left), NItish Kumar (TOI) Bihar minister Ashok Choudhary on Sunday took a sharp dig at Congress leader Rahul Gandhi ahead of the launch of the party's 'Voter Adhikar Yatra', saying he should thank chief minister Nitish Kumar for improving road infrastructure in the state, which made the rally possible, reported news agency ANI. 'Rahul Gandhi should thank Nitish Kumar, for the roads that used to be in such bad shape are now so smooth that Rahul Gandhi is even able to take out a Yatra... He should be grateful that such a big Yatra will be possible due to Nitish Kumar's roads,' Choudhary said, as quoted by the agency. The Congress-led yatra is being launched from Sasaram in protest against the election commission's special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar. The party, along with INDIA block allies, alleges large-scale voter exclusion and 'vote theft'. Senior leaders including RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, former Bihar deputy CM Tejashwi Yadav, Congress president mallikarjun kharge and Rahul Gandhi are expected to participate. Preparations for the event are underway outside in Patna. Bihar leader of opposition Tejashwi Yadav, addressing the media on Saturday, said the campaign aims to raise awareness among voters whose names have been excluded from the electoral list. "We are starting the 'Vote Adhikar Yatra' from Sasaram tomorrow. Tomorrow, we will all be with the Mahagathbandhan allies. We will visit several districts, and our effort will be to make people aware so that no voter's name is left out. We also have fought for this and got a relief from the Supreme Court in this matter, whether it is the Supreme Court direction to the Election Commission of India to publish the list of 65 lakh persons excluded or deleted from the Bihar draft electoral voters list, along with the reasons," Yadav said. Calling the yatra as a 'historical journey', Tejashwi said the Mahagathbandhan would take its message to multiple districts and seek public support. "Tomorrow, Rahul Gandhi and other leaders of the Mahagathbandhan will go among the people and make them aware of voter rights. Along with this, we will also raise the local issues. We will also convey what our vision would be if we form our government. This is going to be a historical journey, and we will get the blessings of the Bihar voters," he added. The yatra will begin on Sunday, from Sasaram, Bihar.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Setting deadlines for president, governors can cause ‘constitutional disorder': Centre tells SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by state Assemblies would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, PTI quoted the Centre as telling the Supreme Court. Such a move could lead to 'constitutional disorder', it added. The Centre's submission was in response to a notice issued by the Supreme Court on July 22 to the Centre and all state governments on a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu about the court's April 8 ruling that set deadlines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills. A constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar is hearing the matter. In a written reply on August 12, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy. 'The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. He added: 'If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by the framers [of the Constitution].' The April 8 ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgment had also introduced the concept of 'deemed assent' in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling. Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance. In his note, Mehta argued that the positions of governor and president are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through judicial interventions, he added. Challenging the April 8 ruling, Mehta said that Articles 200 and 201 deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. 'Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit.' 'To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' Mehta added.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Deadline for Prez, Guv will tilt power balance: Centre
New Delhi: 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 a "constitutional disorder", the Centre has told the Supreme Court. The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says. The positions of the Governor and Oresident are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted. Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said.
