SC to begin hearing President's reference on timeline to act on Bills from Aug 19
Fixing the timeline for the hearing, a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar asked the parties to file their written submissions on or before August 12.
The bench said that it will first hear the parties on the question of maintainability of the reference. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have opposed the reference and have urged the court to return the reference.
'We will hear parties on maintainability first. The ones opposing shall be heard on 19, 20, 21 and 26 August. Supporting the reference will be heard on August 20, Sept 2, 3 and 9. Time schedule will be strictly followed. Let parties complete arguments as prescribed,' the court said.
In the reference, President Murmu has posed 14 questions over the top court's April 8 verdict in which it set a timeline for governors to act on pending Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should decide 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.
President Murmu sought to know whether the actions of the governors and the 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.
In its April 8 ruling, a two-judge bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala 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 ruling 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.
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?' she further asked.
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 and 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'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
After Supreme Court censure, UP Govt says, Banke Bihari Temple Ordinance for ‘better facilities, administration'
The Uttar Pradesh Government Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that the Ordinance to set up a trust for the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan was only for the better administration of the shrine, and that it 'never intended nor intends to interfere with any of the religious rights of any of the parties.' Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj informed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that the Ordinance will soon be placed in the UP Assembly for ratification. The bench was hearing petitions challenging the Ordinance, and the May 15 order of the SC allowing the state government to use the temple funds for buying land around it for a proposed corridor project. On Monday, the apex court questioned the 'tearing hurry' to bring the Ordinance, and the process which led to the May 15 order. The May 15 order had come on an interlocutory application filed by the state in a matter pertaining to the administration and safety of temples in the Braj region. During the hearing, the court said it intended to ask the petitioners to approach the Allahabad High Court challenging the Ordinance and that, in the interim, it will put in place a committee headed by a retired district or HC judge for its administration. Nataraj, while explaining how the Ordinance came about, said Tuesday, '…as a matter of fact, there was a PIL before the Allahabad HC…and the court issued some directions … The state never intended nor intends to interfere with any of the religious rights of any of the parties. It's only with regard to secular activity, that is, for better administration of the temple, that the Ordinance has been issued.' 'Like Ayodhya and Kashi, the government wants to develop this particular temple. It wants to infuse funds for the development of the infrastructure.' The law officer said the Banke Bihari Temple has a 'history', and around 20,000 to 30,000 devotees visit every day, and 2 to 3 lakh during the weekends. 'We require better facilities, better administration. We also have to prevent mismanagement of funds. These are all the different considerations that weighed on the mind of the government.' Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said there is no allegation of mismanagement at any stage. To that, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj said, 'Mismanagement means everybody is managing'. Justice Kant said, 'The local administration will have to be involved. That is the only way to get these things done.' 'We have no problem,' Sibal said, adding that there should be a notification that 25,000 people will be allowed for morning darshan and 25,000 in the evening so that rush can be controlled. Justice Kant pointed out that it will be very difficult to do so given that people visit from across the country. The court adjourned the hearing till Friday to enable the parties to recommend names for the committee it intends to put in place for administering the shrine.
New Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
UCC on fast track in Gujarat: Report due soon, BJP eyes pre-local poll push
AHMEDABAD: In a politically significant move, the Gujarat government has accelerated efforts to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the State. A high-level committee led by retired Supreme Court judge Ranjana Desai met with Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel and Minister of State for Home Harsh Sanghavi in Gandhinagar on August 5, signalling fast-track action on the draft law. The committee, tasked with assessing the feasibility and framework of a Common Civil Code for Gujarat, is now in its final phase, with Desai confirming that the report will be ready within a month, ruling out the need for any extension. Speculation is rife that the UCC could be notified ahead of the upcoming municipal corporation elections, giving the BJP government a potential ideological edge in the urban polls. A crucial meeting was held in Gandhinagar today between UCC Committee Chairperson Justice (Retd) Ranjana Desai and committee members with Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel and Minister of State for Home Harsh Sanghvi. Speaking after the meeting, Justice Desai said, 'We met the Governor on August 4 and the Chief Minister on August 5 in a formal interaction. While the exact date for submitting the report is yet to be fixed, it is likely to be submitted this month. As of now, there seems to be no need for an extension.'
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
'Banke Bihari Temple Ordinance For Better Administration': UP After Supreme Court Rap
New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that its objective for enacting an ordinance for Banke Bihari Temple trust was aimed at better administration of the religious place at Vrindavan in Mathura. On August 4, the top court said it would keep in abeyance its May 15 nod to the ambitious scheme to develop the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Corridor at Vrindavan in Mathura for the benefit of devotees as key stakeholders were not heard. Appearing before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj said the 2025 ordinance had nothing to do with the pending litigation of ownership of the temple administration. "Let me clarify at the outset that the ordinance has nothing to do with the pending writ petition. There was a PIL filed for better administration of the temple before the high court and directions were passed," Nataraj said. He said the ordinance was issued for better administration of the temple, which witnesses about two to three lakh devotees every week. The bench then told Nataraj that his arguments might be good, but could be made when the challenge to the ordinance is relegated to the high court. Nataraj handed over the proposal of the state government to the bench, which, upon examination, was found to be the same as suggested by the court on August 4. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, urged the bench to be allowed to give a proposal and suggestions on the issue of administration of the temple by August 8. The petitioners have challenged the validity of Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, for reportedly taking over the management of the ancient temple and the recall of the top court's May 15 order. On May 15, the top court allowed an impleadment application filed by the state while paving the way for a Uttar Pradesh government scheme to develop the corridor. It allowed the state's plea to utilise the funds of the Banke Bihari temple only for the purchase of a five-acre land around the temple to create a holding area. The top court, however, said the land to be acquired for the purposes of development of the temple and the corridor should be in the name of the deity or the trust. The bench posted the matter for August 8 while allowing the petitioners to give their suggestions on the issue. On August 4, the bench deprecated the approach of the state government in moving the court in "clandestine manner" and questioned the hurry for enacting an ordinance. The top court has said that it would appoint an interim committee headed by a retired high court or district judge to manage the affairs of the temple in the interest of lakhs of devotees besides including the main stakeholders in the managing committee. It asked Nataraj to seek instruction and submit a proposal for administration of the temple and clarified that the court was at present not adjudicating the constitutionality of the ordinance and the high court will look into it. The plea before the bench, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey, of the management committee of the Thakur Shree Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Mathura, challenges the ordinance, which vested the control of the shrine's administration with the state. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
