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
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Meghalaya MP seeks ILP implementation amidst fears of influx from Assam
Shillong, With growing concerns over possible influx of illegal settlers evicted from Assam, an MP from Meghalaya on Friday urged the Union home ministry to implement the Inner Line Permit system in the state, a long-pending demand that has been consistently voiced by the people over the years. Meghalaya MP seeks ILP implementation amidst fears of influx from Assam During a meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Voice of the People Party MP Ricky Syngkon expressed deep concern over the demographic pressures facing the state, citing increasing incidents of unauthorised settlements and encroachments, particularly in sensitive border and fringe areas, including along the international boundary with Bangladesh and those along the interstate boundary with Assam. "The unchecked influx of migrants poses a grave threat to the cultural identity, land rights, and socio-economic security of the tribal population of Meghalaya," Syngkon stated, while calling for urgent intervention from the Centre. The MP pointed out that neighbouring states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland are already under the ILP regime, which serves as a protective mechanism to regulate the entry of non-locals and safeguard the rights of indigenous communities. The appeal gains urgency in light of Assam's ongoing eviction drives targeting illegal settlers and undocumented immigrants, which, the MP fears, could lead to spillover migration into Meghalaya's vulnerable regions. "The implementation of ILP would fulfil a long-standing aspiration of the people and reinforce their trust in constitutional safeguards provided under the Sixth Schedule," the MP said. The demand for ILP is not new. The Meghalaya Legislative Assembly had passed a unanimous resolution in December 2019 urging the Centre to extend the ILP system to the state. Despite multiple follow-ups, the matter remains pending with the Ministry of Home Affairs. The MP also raised the issue of constitutional recognition of the Khasi language, describing it as a vital marker of Meghalaya's cultural and historical identity, and urged the Centre to act on the 2018 Assembly resolution seeking its inclusion in the Eighth Schedule. Additionally, the MP requested that directives be issued to ensure preferential employment opportunities for local tribal youth, particularly in Group 'C' and support staff positions, within central establishments in the state, in alignment with the constitutional provisions under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. The MP further called for the revival of currently non-operational air routes such as Shillong-Dimapur, Shillong-Agartala, and Shillong-Silchar to improve regional mobility, reduce travel hardship, and integrate Meghalaya more closely with the Northeast and the rest of the country. Syngkon also urged the Ministry of Tourism to upgrade the Shillong Centre of the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management into a full-fledged institute, citing its potential to emerge as a hub for tourism studies, skill development, and entrepreneurship in the region. As of now, the Centre has not taken a final decision on any of the demands. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
27 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Not a culmination, but a beginning': Kamal Haasan pens a thoughtful note on making Parliament debut
Superstar Kamal Haasan was sworn in as a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament on Friday. The Tamil actor and politician took his oath in Tamil to resounding thumps on the table by fellow Parliamentarians. The 'Thug Life' actor expressed his happiness on his significant political milestone. The 69-year-old Makkal Needhi Maiam (MNM) founder and actor-turned-politician, talking to media persons outside the parliament earlier, said, 'I am very proud and honoured.' Kamal Haasan's election to the Upper House marks a significant milestone in his political journey, as he assumes a national legislative role for the first time. 'Today, as I rose to take the affirmation as a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha, I did so with a heart full of humility and a conscience weighed by responsibility. I have sworn to uphold the Constitution of India – not as a ritual of formality, but as a solemn promise to serve its spirit with fidelity, courage, and conscience,' Haasan wrote later in a message on X. Haasan was nominated with the support of the ruling DMK-led alliance, which had promised him a Rajya Sabha seat in return for MNM's support during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. 'This moment is not mine alone. I share it with my people, whose voices I carry into the chambers of power. I share it with the soil of Tamil Nadu that has nurtured me – a land that has produced poets and revolutionaries, thinkers and reformers, and above all, citizens who believe deeply in justice, dignity, and self-respect,' Haasan said in the three-page message. Haasan filed his nomination on June 6 at the Tamil Nadu Secretariat in the presence of Chief Minister MK Stalin, Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin, among other political leaders. On June 12, Haasan, who is the president of MNM, and five others were elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Tamil Nadu. The five others elected are DMK's Poet Salma (A Rokkaiah Malik), SR Sivalingam, P Wilson (who enters his second term), and AIADMK's IS Inbadurai and Dhanapal. Haasan promised that he would strive to be the voice of Tamil Nadu in Delhi — clear, compassionate, and committed —and that he would speak not for one community but for the common good. This moment is not mine alone. I share it with my people, whose voices I carry into the chambers of power. "With reverence for the Constitution, with faith in democracy, and with love for my people, I begin this chapter not as a culmination, but as a beginning,' he said. Key Takeaways Kamal Haasan emphasizes the importance of representing the voices of Tamil Nadu in Parliament. His election signifies a broader political strategy and alliance-building in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. Haasan's approach combines reverence for the Constitution with a commitment to serve the common good.
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Goa a step closer to getting 3rd district, Cabinet approves proposal
The Goa Cabinet on Friday approved a proposal for the creation of a third district in the state. As per the proposal, the new district will consist of four hinterland talukas of Sangeum, Dharbandora, Quepem and Canacona, which currently fall under the South Goa district. The district headquarters is proposed to be set up at Curchorem in Quepem taluka. Goa currently has two districts, North Goa and South Goa. North Goa district comprises five talukas — Bardez, Tiswadi, Pernem, Bicholim and Sattari. South Goa district has seven talukas — Ponda, Mormugao, Salcete, Sanguem, Dharbandora, Quepem and Canacona. In November 2023, the Goa government formed a committee to examine the proposal for the creation of a third district in the state. The seven-member committee, headed by the Chief Secretary, was tasked with assessing the need for a third district in view of the increasing population and the need for overall development of the state. The committee was mandated to ascertain whether the creation of a third district would lead to the development and welfare of the people in general, and of backward talukas in particular. It was also asked to suggest the boundaries of the new district after considering several aspects, including population, economic status, availability of infrastructure and public opinion. Sources said that after considering aspects related to the demography, geographical area, infrastructure and administration, the committee recommended the creation of a third district, carved out of areas falling under the South Goa district. 'The existing South Goa district, thus altered, may consist of Ponda, Salcete and Mormugao talukas. The boundaries of the existing North Goa district may remain unchanged,' the committee is learnt to have said in its report. The committee further said that as per the socio-economic indicators of the area of the proposed district, it meets the criteria for selection for the Aspirational Districts Programme. The panel further said it is likely that the creation of the district would attract central funds in key sectors such as health, education, agriculture, water, infrastructure and financial inclusion to accelerate development in the area. In January 2021, former chief minister and Ponda MLA Ravi Naik had moved a private member's resolution in the state Legislative Assembly, demanding the constitution of a third revenue district, comprising Sattari, Ponda and Dharbandora talukas. Naik had argued that the third district was a long-pending demand of the people of these talukas and that it would facilitate better administration, efficient delivery of services and help in getting more funds from the Centre for development projects in the state. Naik had also said the people of Sattari, Ponda and Dharbandora talukas were largely underprivileged and often found themselves running in the corridors of the collectorate buildings and forced to travel to Margao and Panaji to get their work done. The resolution was defeated after a vote in the House. In February 2020, Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant said the government was considering forming a third district in the state, in view of increasing population and the need for overall development.
