Latest news with #Article143
Hindustan Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC likely to take up presidential reference next week
The Supreme Court is likely to take up the presidential reference on the timeline for gubernatorial and presidential assent to state bills as early as next week, even as an internal debate has emerged over whether the matter must be placed directly before a Constitution bench or if a three-judge bench may first hear it and issue preliminary notices. People familiar with the development said that the court registry has been asked to examine previous Article 143 references to determine if even initial hearings were conducted by benches of at least five judges, or if smaller benches issued notices before the matters were escalated to Constitution benches. One of the people cited above said: 'The case will eventually go to a Constitution bench, and that is settled. The only issue being considered is whether notices to the attorney general, solicitor general, and all states can be issued by a three-judge bench initially, or must it be done solely by a five-judge bench.' This person pointed out that there is a view that since the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 involves a substantial question of law, a five-judge bench must hear the matter from the outset. The procedural dilemma arises even as President Droupadi Murmu, in a rare move invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, has sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on 14 complex legal questions following the court's April 8 judgment that laid down timelines for governors and the President to act on state bills. The reference, filed on May 13, asked the court to clarify whether the President and governors must follow judicially prescribed timelines despite the Constitution being silent on such timeframes, and whether such executive actions are justiciable before the courts prior to a bill becoming law. The Supreme Court's April 8 ruling, delivered by a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, for the first time prescribed a deadline of three months for the President to decide on a bill referred by a governor, and held that a governor must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-enacted bills. If a governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the President's consideration, the judgment held, this must be done within three months of its presentation. In that case, which involved 10 pending bills from Tamil Nadu, the court went so far as to invoke Article 142 to hold that the governor's inaction was 'illegal' and the bills would be deemed to have received assent. The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether such 'deemed assent' is constitutionally valid, and whether the Supreme Court can impose procedural directions on the President or governors. It questioned whether Article 142 can be used to override express constitutional provisions, and whether the President's discretion under Article 201 can be subject to timelines or judicial review. The reference also raised doubts over whether the April 8 judgment should have been decided by a larger bench, since Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates that substantial questions of law must be heard by at least five judges. 'This concern is being looked into seriously, and the registry's review of precedent is crucial to determine how to proceed procedurally,' said another person familiar with the internal discussion. Since independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the court's advisory opinion on complex questions of law and public importance. While the court's opinion in such references is not binding on the president, they have historically played a vital role in constitutional interpretation. 'The questions go to the heart of Centre-State relations, the federal structure, and the limits of judicial and executive powers,' said a government official familiar with the drafting process. 'This is not just about one judgment, but the architecture of how laws are made and how constitutional roles are performed.' Among the issues raised in the reference are whether decisions of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 can be judicially reviewed before a law takes effect; whether courts can direct or substitute the President or governor's discretion using Article 142; and whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review altogether. Another critical question pertains to whether disputes of this nature should only be adjudicated under Article 131 of the Constitution, which governs disputes between states and the Union, or whether the Supreme Court can resolve them through writ jurisdiction or otherwise. The reference also asks whether the governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the state's council of ministers while exercising discretion under Article 200.
Indian Express
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Stalin seeks to rally non-BJP CMs following President's questions on SC's Tamil Nadu Governor verdict
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin has written to eight non-BJP Chief Ministers, including West Bengal's Mamata Banerjee, urging them to 'oppose the reference sought by the President before the Supreme Court' over the powers and deadlines concerning gubernatorial assent to state legislation. Calling it a move that could 'unsettle a landmark judgment' on federal powers, Stalin asked for a united legal front to 'preserve and protect the basic structure of the Constitution'. Stalin's letter, dated July 17, comes after the Union government advised the President to invoke Article 143 and refer 14 questions to the Supreme Court — questions Stalin said are intended to 'question the findings on law and interpretation of the Constitution' delivered in the State of Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu verdict. While the presidential reference does not explicitly mention any state or judgment, Stalin warned that 'its intent is to undermine' a ruling that he described as a 'historic judgment obtained by my government… not only for my state but for all states'. The Supreme Court ruling had strongly limited the discretionary power of Governors, affirming that they are 'bound by the aid and advice of the state Cabinet while dealing with Bills' and that they 'cannot exercise pocket veto to delay assent to Bills inordinately'. The judgment also held that a Governor 'cannot kill Bills by withholding assent and not returning Bills to the House', and that when a Bill is re-enacted and sent for assent for a second time, the Governor 'cannot withhold assent'. Clear timelines were also laid down for the President and Governor under Articles 200 and 201. Stalin warned that the BJP-led Centre is using the President's reference as the 'first limb of their ploy' to dilute the judgment, which could set a precedent for other Opposition-ruled states. 'We have all been witness to the way in which the BJP-led Union government has used Governors to obstruct and impede the functioning of Opposition-ruled States,' Stalin wrote, citing delays in assent to Bills, withholding of routine approvals, and interference in appointments and universities. 'They have been able to do so by taking advantage of the fact that the Constitution is silent on certain issues, because the framers of the Constitution trusted that those holding high constitutional office would act in accordance with constitutional morality,' he wrote. Stalin, who is also the president of the state's ruling DMK, called on the CMs to intervene personally and urgently. 'I am now writing to you to personally request your good selves to oppose this reference… We must evolve a coordinated legal strategy before the court and present a united front to preserve and protect the basic structure of the Constitution,' the letter said. The Chief Ministers of West Bengal, Kerala, Telangana, Punjab, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh are believed to be among the recipients of the letter. Stalin had earlier called on leaders of all regional parties opposed to the BJP to 'unite in the upcoming legal battle'.
Hans India
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Stalin urges opposition-ruled states to oppose Centre's Presidential reference on Governor's powers
In a sharp rebuke to what he described as an attempt to undermine India's federal structure, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has written to the Chief Ministers of eight non-BJP ruled states, urging a united stand against the Union Government's recent Presidential reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143. In his letter, Stalin addressed the Chief Ministers of West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand, Punjab, and the administration of Jammu and Kashmir, calling for coordinated resistance to what he termed a 'legal challenge to state autonomy.' The reference, made by the Union Government on May 13, seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on a series of constitutional questions, following the court's landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu. That ruling, widely regarded as a victory for federalism, reaffirmed that Governors are constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the elected state Cabinet. Calling the verdict 'historic,' Stalin noted that it categorically struck down practices such as indefinite delays in granting assent to Bills, arbitrary withholding of assent, and prolonged inaction on legislation passed by state Assemblies. He argued that the Centre's latest move — though it does not name the Tamil Nadu case directly — is clearly aimed at diluting that judicial pronouncement. 'The reference is a veiled attempt by the BJP-led Union Government to challenge the Supreme Court's verdict through the advisory jurisdiction of the President,' Stalin said. The DMK President further accused the Centre of misusing Governors as political agents to interfere in state matters — from stalling legislation and appointments to disrupting university administration — particularly in opposition-ruled states. Stalin urged the formation of a united legal and political strategy to defend the basic structure of the Constitution. 'It is imperative that all democratic forces committed to constitutional federalism come together in consultation and collaboration,' he wrote, calling for an immediate response to what he termed a dangerous precedent.
New Indian Express
17-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
CM Stalin misleading people on President Murmu's actions: Annamalai
TIRUVANNAMALAI: Former BJP state president K Annamalai on Friday accused Chief Minister M K Stalin of misleading the people of Tamil Nadu for political gains on Presidential reference. Responding to Stalin's criticism of the centre and the President for reference to the Supreme Court on its April 8 verdict that set timelines for governors and President regarding assent to bills, Annamalai said, 'Article 143 of the Constitution empowers the President to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on important legal issues.' He said, 'The CM is confusing the people by terming a constitutional process as political interference. Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to secure complete justice, and Article 143 enables the President to raise constitutional queries,' Annamalai said. 'The President has raised 14 questions in connection with the governor's powers and the time limit set by the apex court. This is well within her constitutional rights,' he said. Citing precedents, Annamalai recalled how Article 143 was used in 1991 during the Cauvery water dispute when the then President referred Karnataka's resolution to the Supreme Court. 'Back then, Tamil Nadu welcomed the intervention. Today, when the same law is used, the DMK calls it unconstitutional,' Annamalai said. Including Ram Janmabhoomi issue, this is the 16th time Article 143 has been invoked in independent India, he said. 'Every institution -- be it the President, Supreme Court, governor or CM -- has defined powers. The President's move respects the court's authority, not questions it,' he said.
