Presidential reference: SC questions Centre, AG over pendency of bills with governors since 2020
The query from a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai came while hearing a presidential reference seeking clarity on whether fixed timelines could be imposed on governors and President while dealing with bills passed by the state legislatures.
The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, said it would be expressing its views only on the law and not on the April 8 decision in the Tamil Nadu case, fixing a timeline for governors and President for acting on bills passed by state legislatures.
The bench, while responding to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments on maintainability of the presidential reference, said it would exercise its advisory jurisdiction as it was not sitting in the appellate jurisdiction.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, whose assistance was sought by the top court, said courts cannot exercise its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to rule the bills pending with Governor, are deemed to have been passed.
Justice Kant asked Venkataramani whether bills were pending before Tamil Nadu Governor since 2020.
The AG said those facts were not before the court and the court had to examine the "lis" before it.
"The court has to look at the law, whether such an order can be passed. Even if it is factually correct…there were explanations given for that. There was an explanation why the governor kept the bills pending. We are talking about state of powers on whether Article 142 can be invoked to declare the bills deemed to have been passed," he said.
The bench, however, asked him, "What can you enlighten us about what a constitutional court would do if it has to deal with such facts ? If the court went wrong according to you, what is the constitutionally permissible way to deal with this situation?"
The CJI and Justice Narasimha also questioned Venkataramani while referring to certain paragraphs in the April 15 verdict, dealing with the reasons for invoking Article 142 of the Constitution.
"Just see the egregious situation where it had come to.. it was to remedy that situation that the court had to step in. The bills were pending for so long. What option did the court have?" Justice Narasimha asked.
Venkataramani said once the court enters into this arena, it would be asked to consider any "mind-boggling fact" but the question was "can the court enter this arena at all".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said these questions have come before the republic for the first time and urged the court to not go into the facts of individual cases.
"There may be some deviations, either in legislature or in executive or sometimes in judiciary but there are checks and balances. We have to deal with these issues holistically," Mehta submitted.
He said there could be errant cases of governors, ministers, right or wrong advice or timeline lagging but the core issue being significant for the democracy, the court could advise on related to the role of President and governors in a federal structure.
Earlier in the hearing, while replying to the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments, Mehta said the top court possesses an inherent power to overrule its judgments which was not a part of any appellate power.
"This is for the first time, the President felt functional disharmony arose and will arise because of no authoritative pronouncement. Its because a two-judge bench fixed the timeline for another authority. There is a constitutional problem how Governor and President would act...the highest head of executive is seeking guidance, the judgment has created a constitutional problem," he said.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143 to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
The Centre said in its written submission 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".
The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on Wednesday.
On April 8, the apex court while dealing with the powers of the governor with respect of bills passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly 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 a reference is received.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Amit Shah, Rajnath Singh to head panels for economy, social sector reforms
TWO NEW informal groups of ministers (iGoMs) have been formed by the Centre under Home Minister Amit Shah and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to prescribe reforms in the economic and social sectors, respectively. Shah's panel comprises 13 members, including Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal, with Minister of Railways, I&B and Electronics & IT Ashwini Vaishnaw as the convener. This group will focus on laying out the legislative and policy reform agenda in the technology and economic sectors, including finance, industry, commerce infrastructure, logistics, resources, science and technology, and governance. The second 18-member grouping on social, welfare and security sectors is headed by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. This will examine the scope for reforms in sectors including education, healthcare, defence, skilling, social welfare, housing, labour, public health etc. Others in this panel include Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari, Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, with Labour and Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya designated as its convener. The groups have beens set up following Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Independence Day address where he pressed home the need for next-generation reforms and announced the setting up of a task force. 'Current rules, laws, policies, and procedures must be redrafted to suit the 21st century, to fit the global environment, and to align with the vision of making Bharat a developed nation by 2047,' Modi had said in his address. Both groups have been asked to submit monthly reports on the progress made, followed by a consolidated reforms roadmap at the end of three months. Secretarial support for this would be provided by the Finance Ministry's Department of Economic Affairs. The chairs of the two GoMs are vested with the mandate to invite ministers, secretaries and subject matter experts, as and when required. A government source said these two panels are expected to go beyond just advisory roles and prescribe actionable roadmaps, with measurable outcomes to track these actions. Some of these metrics, sources said, include a calibrated and quantifiable reduction of compliance burden on citizens and businesses; driving employment generation and productivity enhancement, dismantling legacy bottlenecks and identifying reforms at the Central, State and municipal corporation levels. The composition of the two panels suggests the Prime Minister is keen to reflect the criticality of pushing through these small and big decisions that hold back progress both on the social and economic front. It includes many ministers so that quick actions can be taken on recommendations. The panels have also been tasked with suggesting legislative reforms that include repeal or changes to existing laws and readying the draft enabling legislations for futuristic sectors including digital health, fintech, the gig economy etc; identifying policy reforms; highlighting process-focused reform and institutional reforms that span the central, state and local levels. Earlier, in a bid to impart urgency to overhauling the Goods and Services Tax regime, Home Minister Shah is learnt to have been roped in to coordinate with all stakeholders — states as well as Central ministries — to resolve contentious outstanding issues. His intervention in thrashing out the GST consensus was described as 'normal' and was cited by a source as being helpful in resolving 'politically sensitive issues' and 'those that need support from states'. There have been instances in the past when he was part of the meetings, including his involvement in discussions on disinvestment and as the chair of meetings on price rise of staple food items in the past. Also, while a new Bill on real-money online gaming that prescribes sweeping bans and harsh penalties for both platforms and their promoters has been drafted by the IT Ministry, the Union Home Ministry is being viewed by the industry as the driving force behind the move. While the IT Ministry prepared the legislation, key major gaming industry associations sent a letter to the Union Home Ministry saying that the blanket prohibition will 'strike a death knell for this legitimate, job creating industry, and would cause serious harm to Indian users and citizens'.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Congress picks Khurshid to lead party's foreign affairs wing, BJP ex-MP as vice-chair
Brijendra Singh, a former BJP MP and the son of Birender Singh who served as a minister in the first two Modi governments, had joined the Congress in 2024 ahead of the 2024 general elections. He contested the Haryana assembly election but lost by a margin of 32 votes. Khurshid, who served as the minister of external affairs in the UPA-II government, will be assisted by Brijendra Singh and Arathi Krishna as vice-chairpersons of the department which had previously Manish Tewari, Deepender Singh Hooda as members among others. New Delhi: The Congress Wednesday appointed senior leader Salman Khurshid, 72, as the chairperson of the party's Foreign Affairs Department, days after Anand Sharma stepped down from the post citing the need to entrust 'younger leaders' with the charge. Arathi Krishna is considered close to Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. Incidentally, Khurshid was among the Congress leaders to be made members of multi-party delegations on Operation Sindoor by the Centre. His name did not figure in the list of four names that the Congress had proposed. What makes his appointment interesting is that Khurshid had irked the Congress leadership by defending the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir during his visit to Indonesia as part of one of the delegations. He had told a gathering of academia and think tanks in Indonesia that Article 370 of the Constitution had given rise to an impression that J&K was 'separate' from the rest of India. 'But Article 370 was abrogated. It was abrogated, and it was finally put to an end, because so much time has passed. Subsequently, there was an election with 65 percent participation in the election. There's an elected government in Jammu and Kashmir today. And therefore, for people who want to undo everything that has happened, the prosperity that has come to Kashmir is something which is very, very unfortunate, and it will give a setback to anybody,' he had said. While the Congress has never demanded the restoration of Article 370, the party also never hailed the move as one that benefited Jammu and Kashmir. That is why the BJP was quick to seize on Khurshid's remarks in an attempt to corner the Congress. Later, Khurshid, in a post on X, had hit out at his critics, including within the party. 'When on a mission against terrorism, to carry India's message to the world, it is distressing that people at home are calculating political allegiances… is it so difficult to be patriotic?' he had posted. Sharma, on the other hand, was the Congress leadership's only choice that had made the cut for being part of the delegations formed in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor to argue India's case in various world capitals. While in his resignation letter, Sharma wrote that the department needs to be reconstituted to bring in younger leaders of potential and promise, sources told ThePrint that he was upset over being sidelined and not consulted on foreign policy matters by the Congress leadership. Over the last few years, he has found himself at odds with the party leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, over many issues. Earlier this month, after Rahul, currently the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, remarked that he agreed with US President Donald Trump's assessment that the Indian economy was 'dead', Sharma took a divergent view. 'President Trump has triggered an upheaval and caused unprecedented disruption in the world order by his utterances and actions. His comments on India and its Economy are belittling and unacceptable. India has withstood pressures & threats in the past, & emerged stronger. President Trump is mistaken that India does not have options. As the fourth largest economy India has resilience & inherent strength to engage with the world on principles of equality & mutual respect…' Sharma wrote on X on 4 August. Also Read: Control, fear, and division—Congress hasn't changed even 50 years after Emergency
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Can elected govt be at whims and fancies of Governor, asks CJI
The Supreme Court bench hearing the Presidential reference asked the government Wednesday whether an elected government can be placed at 'the whims and fancies of the Governor' by vesting him/her with the power to withhold a Bill forever. 'But then would we not be giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeals?… The government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the Governor,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Centre. The bench said that to interpret that the Bill 'dies' the first time the Governor withholds it 'would be counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process'. The five-judge Constitution bench is hearing President Droupadi Murmu's reference on timelines fixed by a two-judge bench for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state legislatures. Delving into the contours of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, Mehta told the bench: 'It is not an asylum for retired politicians but has its own sanctity which was debated in the Constituent Assembly.' He said the Governor, though unelected, represents the President and is not just a 'postman' to mechanically approve Bills. 'A person who is not directly elected is not a lesser person,' he said. Addressing the bench which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, Mehta said the Governor has the option to grant assent to a Bill referred by the state legislature, withhold assent, refer it to the President in case of repugnancy with any Central law or return it to the state legislature for reconsideration. He said withholding is not a temporary act, and that 5-judge and 7-judge benches of the Supreme Court have interpreted it to mean that the Bill 'falls through'. Illustrating this, he said, 'Suppose a border state passes a Bill dealing with our external affairs, that we will permit a particular country's people to enter or not, then he cannot assent, he cannot refer it to President because it's not a repugnancy issue, and he cannot resend it to the House because if it is again passed, he cannot say no to it. So he will have to withhold.' He said the power 'has to be used rarely, sparingly, but that is the way the situation is'. The CJI then asked, 'If he doesn't exercise the option of resending the Bill for reconsideration, he can withhold it for time immemorial?' 'It dies,' Mehta said, reiterating that 'it (the power) is to be used rarely but power is conferred.' He said, 'The very language in which Article 200 is couched, it gives him options.' He said 'neither textually nor contextually, it is possible to conclude that the term withhold will have to be read as a temporary suspension of powers of granting assent till first proviso works out. There is no concept of temporary withholding of any Bill. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to link the term withhold in the main part of Article 200 to read only in the context of first proviso, two things would have been provided: (a) term withhold in the main part would have been qualified with the term subject to first proviso mentioned therein, (b) the first proviso would have mentioned that the Bill so withheld shall be reconsidered by the House, which is not there.' Justice Narasimha said the options must remain open-ended so that the political process has the chance to resolve the deadlock over a Bill. 'The way the political process occurs is not adjudicatory. Even assuming the Governor says I withhold, the political process can knock his doors and he can still open it and say, I will send it back to you, you consider and send it back. But to say… the first time he says, I withhold, the matter comes to an end… It can't be like that. It is counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process also. It has to be in a situation where it is open-ended,' he said. He was quick to add that the court understood that the Solicitor General was referring to Bills on subjects in the Union List. On the debate over the discretionary powers of the Governor, Justice Narasimha said, 'At that time we did not have impact assessment of a statute … Now, you see the amount of litigation it has thrown up by having provisions of this nature. Perhaps that could tell us whether the vision was right or not. Because the validity or correctness of a thought will come from its performance.' Mehta said he was 'not arguing that the Governor has unlimited discretion'. CJI Gavai said, 'We have some experience as to how some honourable Governors have exercised their discretion leading to so many litigations, but we are not going by that.' Mehta said, 'Indian democracy is a matured democracy. There may be aberrations on an individual level. But by and large, the democracy under this very Constitution has worked very effectively. And I personally experienced it during Covid times, how the Centre-state federal balance envisaged was on display. So it would be really hazardous to assess on the basis of some aberrations.'
