Latest news with #Article200
United News of India
12 hours 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
New Indian Express
2 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?
NDTV
4 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Top Court Allows Kerala To Withdraw Pleas Against Governor Over Assent To Bills
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Kerala government to withdraw its pleas against the Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar passed the order after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought withdrawal of the plea and said the issue had turned infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of the President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgment on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. Acting on a plea of the Tamil Nadu government, a top court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for the President's consideration in the second round, holding it as illegal, erroneous in law. The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for the President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such a reference was received. Kerala sought similar directions in its petition. In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature. Khan is currently the Governor of Bihar. The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu, and those were yet to be cleared. Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of the Kerala Governor. The state said its plea related to the acts of the Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued. The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years, and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added. "The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said. The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent. Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC allows Kerala govt to withdraw pleas against guv over assent to bills
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Kerala government to withdraw its pleas against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar passed the order after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought withdrawal of the plea and said the issue had turned infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law. The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received. Kerala sought similar directions in its petition. In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature. Khan is currently Governor of Bihar. The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared. Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor. The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued. The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added. "The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said. The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent. Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
United News of India
7 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC issues notice on President's reference: Can courts set deadlines for guvs & Prez on bills?
New Delhi, July 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court today issued notices to the Union government and all state governments on President Droupadi Murmu's crucial reference seeking clarity on the constitutional powers of governors and the President to grant assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201. A constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, posted the matter for hearing next Tuesday to allow appearances by all respondents. The CJI indicated that the court plans to hear the case in August. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani was requested to assist the court. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, waived formal notice. Senior advocate KK Venugopal, representing Kerala, flagged concerns over the maintainability of the presidential reference. Similarly, senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, noted that issues raised are already covered by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case and said Tamil Nadu would contest the maintainability as well. The reference comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's recent landmark judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, where the court ruled that governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills (popularly termed as 'pocket veto'), and set a maximum three-month timeline for decisions. The court further held that if a governor reserves a bill for the President, the President too must act within three months. It also declared deemed assent for 10 bills pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor for over a year. The ruling drew sharp criticism from former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who questioned whether courts could direct the President, and described the court's Article 142 powers as a 'nuclear missile'. The presidential reference now seeks the court's opinion on 14 key constitutional questions, including: Whether courts can prescribe timelines for the President or a governor to act on bills in the absence of specific constitutional limits; Whether the governor is bound by the advice of the state cabinet under Article 200. Whether the governor or President's discretion in assenting to Bills is justiciable. Whether the Supreme Court's Article 142 powers extend to issuing orders contrary to constitutional provisions. Whether the Supreme Court can resolve Union-State disputes outside a suit under Article 131. Whether Bills become law without the governor's assent. Justices Narasimha and Chandurkar on the bench are also hearing the Kerala governor matter, where the state argues that the Tamil Nadu judgment applies, while the Union government disagrees, contending that the court should wait for the outcome of this presidential reference. The court will take up this significant constitutional matter next Tuesday, with its decision likely to shape the contours of legislative assent powers and Centre-State relations for years to come. UNI SNG PRS
