Latest news with #Article143
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to begin hearing on presidential reference from August 19
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set the stage for detailed hearings in the presidential reference concerning whether governors and the president can be judicially compelled to act within fixed timelines on state bills, scheduling the matter before a five-judge Constitution bench starting August 19. SC to begin hearing on presidential reference from August 19 The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, finalised a nine-day hearing calendar extending into September. The court also decided to hear preliminary objections raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu against the maintainability of the reference at the outset before allowing the Union government and other supporting parties to present arguments. The bench accepted a request by senior advocates KK Venugopal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, to allow them make arguments on why the reference ought to be returned and how it is an attempt to re-litigate settled law and amounts to an appeal disguised as a reference. The Constitution bench directed that written submissions be filed by August 12. The hearings will take place on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, with arguments by the Union and supporting states. August 28 and September 2, 3, and 9 have been set aside for states opposing the reference, followed by a rejoinder by the Union on September 10. Advocate Aman Mehta was appointed nodal counsel for parties supporting the reference, and Misha Rohatgi for those opposing it. 'The time fixed shall be scrupulously followed and parties shall complete their arguments within the stipulated time,' the bench emphasised in its order. The hearing arises from an unprecedented presidential reference under Article 143, in which President Droupadi Murmu referred to the Supreme Court 14 constitutional questions stemming from the court's April 8 judgment that imposed enforceable timelines on constitutional authorities for acting on state bills. The April ruling, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had for the first time laid down binding timelines for governors and the president in relation to state legislation. It held that governors must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-passed bills and decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The court also ruled that inordinate delays could result in 'deemed assent', invoking Article 142 to ensure constitutional functionality. That verdict arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which had accused its governor of delaying assent to 10 important state bills. The court termed the governor's inaction as 'illegal' and directed action within defined timelines, triggering constitutional debate about separation of powers and the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries. On July 22, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union and all state governments, noting that the constitutional issues raised go beyond Tamil Nadu and have implications across the country. 'We are going to decide for everyone, and not only for Tamil Nadu,' the bench said, as it scheduled further proceedings for July 29 to finalise the hearing dates. In Tuesday's hearing, Venugopal and Singhvi reiterated their objections to the maintainability of the reference. Tamil Nadu has already filed an application seeking outright dismissal of the reference, while Kerala accused the Union of misleading the court into overturning the April 8 judgment. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, urged the court to consider the maintainability along with the merits, arguing, 'In the past, all issues have been decided together.' The bench, however, agreed to give Venugopal and Singhvi an hour on August 19 to argue on the maintainability of the reference. The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether a 'deemed assent', as mandated in the April 8 judgment by the two-judge bench, 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. 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.
United News of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC to hear Presidential Reference on timelines for Governor, President's assent to bills from August 19
New Delhi, Jul 29 (UNI) The Supreme Court today announced that it will begin hearings on the Presidential Reference concerning the constitutional powers of the Governor and the President in relation to granting or withholding assent to state legislation, under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The hearings will commence on August 19 and continue through September 10, with the Court making it clear that the schedule is non-negotiable and will not be altered under any circumstances. A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, will adjudicate the Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The Court has directed all parties to submit their written submissions by August 12. The hearing schedule will be as follows: August 19: Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments to raise preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Reference. August 19, 20, 21, 26: Attorney General and the Union of India to argue in support of the Reference. August 28, September 2, 3, and 9: States opposing the Reference will present their arguments. September 10: Rejoinders, if any, to be heard. The Court has appointed Advocate Aman Mehta as the nodal counsel for the Union and Advocate Misha Rohatgi as the nodal counsel for the opposing States to compile and coordinate submissions. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, informed the Bench that Kerala has filed an application contending that 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the Reference have already been answered by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. He submitted that invoking Article 143 in this instance amounts to an attempt to bypass or undermine that judgment. Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, informed the Court that Tamil Nadu has also challenged the maintainability of the Reference, echoing similar concerns. The Reference follows the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that Governors must act within a three-month timeframe when deciding on assent to Bills passed by the legislature. The Court also stated that if the Governor reserves a Bill for Presidential assent, the President must likewise act within three months. Importantly, the Court ruled that if either constitutional authority fails to act within the stipulated time, a writ of mandamus can be sought by the concerned State. In that judgment, the Court also held that ten Bills kept pending for over a year had received deemed assent. The Reference by the President seeks clarity on 14 substantive constitutional questions, including, What options are available to a Governor under Article 200 when a Bill is presented? Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers while acting under Article 200? Is the Governor's discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review? Does Article 361 bar courts from reviewing the Governor's actions under Article 200? Can courts impose timelines on Governors and prescribe how their powers should be exercised in the absence of constitutional guidelines? Is the President's discretion under Article 201 justiciable? Can courts prescribe timelines for the President's actions under Article 201? Is the President required to consult the Supreme Court before acting on a Bill reserved by a Governor? Are the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable before a law comes into force? Can orders or actions by the President or Governor be overridden using Article 142? Does a law passed by a State legislature come into force without the Governor's assent under Article 200? Should constitutional benches determine in advance if a matter involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation under Article 145(3)? Does Article 142 empower the Supreme Court to issue orders contrary to existing constitutional or statutory provisions? Is Article 131 the sole remedy for resolving disputes between the Union and States? The hearing promises to be a landmark event, with far-reaching implications on Centre-State relations, constitutional conventions, and judicial limits on executive discretion. UNI SNG AAB
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to commence hearing on presidential reference matter from August 19
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will commence detailed hearings in the presidential reference matter on whether governors and the president can be judicially compelled to act within fixed timelines on state bills, scheduling the matter before a five-judge Constitution bench starting August 19. Supreme Court of India. (PTI Photo) The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, finalised a nine-day hearing calendar extending into September. The court also decided to hear preliminary objections raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu against the maintainability of the reference at the outset before allowing the Union government and other supporting parties to present arguments. The bench accepted a request by senior advocates KK Venugopal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu, respectively, to allow them make arguments on why the reference ought to be returned and how it is an attempt to re-litigate settled law and amounts to an appeal disguised as a reference. The Constitution bench directed that written submissions be filed by August 12. The hearings will take place on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, with arguments by the Union and supporting states. August 28 and September 2, 3, and 9 have been set aside for states opposing the reference, followed by a rejoinder by the Union on September 10. Advocate Aman Mehta was appointed nodal counsel for parties supporting the reference, and Misha Rohatgi for those opposing it. 'The time fixed shall be scrupulously followed and parties shall complete their arguments within the stipulated time,' the bench emphasised in its order. The hearing arises from an unprecedented presidential reference under Article 143, in which President Droupadi Murmu referred to the 14 constitutional questions of the Supreme Court stemming from the court's April 8 judgment that imposed enforceable timelines on constitutional authorities for acting on state bills. The April ruling, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had for the first time laid down binding timelines for governors and the president in relation to state legislation. It held that governors must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-passed bills and decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The court also ruled that inordinate delays could result in 'deemed assent', invoking Article 142 to ensure constitutional functionality. That verdict arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which had accused its governor of delaying assent to 10 important state bills. The court termed the governor's inaction as 'illegal' and directed action within defined timelines, triggering constitutional debate about separation of powers and the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries. On July 22, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union and all state governments, noting that the constitutional issues raised go beyond Tamil Nadu and have implications across the country. 'We are going to decide for everyone, and not only for Tamil Nadu,' the bench said, as it scheduled further proceedings for July 29 to finalise the hearing dates. In Tuesday's hearing, Venugopal and Singhvi reiterated their objections to the maintainability of the reference. Tamil Nadu has already filed an application seeking outright dismissal of the reference, while Kerala accused the Union of misleading the court into overturning the April 8 judgment. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, urged the court to consider the maintainability along with the merits, arguing, 'In the past, all issues have been decided together.' The bench, however, agreed to give Venugopal and Singhvi an hour on August 19 to argue on the maintainability of the reference. The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether a 'deemed assent', as mandated in the April 8 judgment by the two-judge bench, 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. 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.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to reject Presidential reference on Governors' assent timelines, saying it suppresses key rulings and misuses Article 143 to reopen already settled issues Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported. Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading. Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'. The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon'ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'.' Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases: * State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana * State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab * State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said. 'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself' Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference. 'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.' The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route. Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said. What the Supreme Court had held earlier In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process. On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state. Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays. Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Kerala govt moves SC seeking rejection of Presidential reference, calls it 'misuse of power'
"A reference under Article 143 cannot be used to overrule findings of law and fact in earlier judgments," the Kerala government stated. It further pointed out that the Union government has not filed any review or curative petition against the April 8 ruling, making it binding under Article 141. "The President and the council of ministers must act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144," the plea added. The state also accused the reference of misinterpreting Article 200 by falsely claiming that no timeline exists for governors to act on Bills. "The foundational issues in queries 1 to 11 have already been settled in the Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Telangana cases," Kerala argued, urging the court to reject the reference as "misleading." The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has agreed to examine the Presidential reference and has sought responses from the Centre and all states by July 29. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, will hear the matter on August 29, with the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. The court will determine whether judicially enforceable timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President regarding pending Bills. The controversy stems from the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, which held that Governors must act within three months if withholding assent to a bill and within one month if a bill is re-enacted. The court had invoked Article 142 to declare Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's inaction as "illegal" and deemed 10 pending Bills as approved. President Murmu's reference challenges this verdict, raising questions on whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice and if their discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. With Kerala now accusing the reference of being a "backdoor attempt" to undo settled law, the Supreme Court's upcoming decision could have far-reaching implications on Centre-state relations and the powers of constitutional authorities. Out of 14 crucial questions, the majority and important were as follows: 1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? 4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 5) 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?
