'Merit will never be compromised,' CJI Gavai vows transparency in judicial appointments
Show more
Show less
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
CJI-led bench to hear on July 22 President's reference to it on timeline for assent to Bills
The Supreme Court will take up on July 22 the reference made by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution, following the apex court's verdict fixing timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. A Constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar will consider the matter. In the Presidential 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 the Governors and President are justiciable 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 SC 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 SC, 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 under' it. '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?' 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'. President 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 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?' 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 [and not Article 131] of the Constitution of India 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.' 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'. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SC's five-judge bench to consider Presidential reference on timeline for assent to state bills on July 22
NEW DELHI: A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that 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. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
SC bench to hear Presidential reference on timelines for bills on July 22
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President Press Trust of India New Delhi A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on July 22 the Presidential reference on whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. According to the cause list posted on the apex court website, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar will be hearing the matter. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised her powers under Article 143(1) and posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The April 8 verdict, passed in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government, for the first time prescribed that 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. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor. The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum. The rules prescribe that the review petitions be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers, while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of the governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for the President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon the governor to exercise constitutional options. The President said that similarly, Article 201, which prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent therefrom, does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas 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," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court of India. "It appears to me that the following questions of the law have arisen and are of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon," President Murmu said while posing 14 questions to the apex court for its opinion. The SC verdict has set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governor does not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which passed the verdict, said that reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" was strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
