Can deadline be imposed for Bill assent, Prez asks SC
President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 questions arising out of the April 8 verdict fixing deadlines for the Governors and the President to take a call on Bills passed by state Assemblies.
In an unprecedented verdict, the apex court had on April 8 restricted the President’s discretionary powers on Bills referred by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution and set a three-month timeframe for her to decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration.
Reserving a Bill on grounds such as “personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations” is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone, the SC had said.
Murmu has invoked Article 143 — a rarely used provision under which the President is empowered to consult the top court and seek its opinion on questions of law or fact.
The reference has to be heard by a Bench of at least five judges and the Supreme Court’s opinion is not binding on the President and it’s not a binding law within Article 141. It’s open to the top court to answer the reference or not. However, in case it does not want to answer the reference, the court has to give reasons.
The reference comes in the wake of criticism of the April 8 verdict by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar who questioned the rationale behind the SC prescribing timelines for the President and the Governor in the absence of any such provisions under the Constitution. Attorney-General R Venkataramani had said that the verdict was delivered without hearing the President.
On April 8, the Supreme Court had set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills and reserving them for the President even after they were re-enacted by the state Assembly, terming it "illegal and erroneous".
Exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench had declared that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.
A Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala had said, “The President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the state concerned.”
“Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a Bill is presented to him (her) for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit (of three months) then it shall be open to the state government to seek a writ of mandamus from this court,” the Bench, including Justice R Mahadevan, had said.
However, Murmu has sought to know if in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time-limit, the SC could impose timelines on exercise of powers by the two constitutional functionaries.
The President has asked the top court to clarify if its powers under Article 142 were limited to matters of procedural law or extended to issuing directions or orders contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or any law in force.
She has also raised the issue of states approaching the top court under Article 32 meant for enforcement of fundamental rights and not under Article 131 which deals with the SC’s original jurisdiction in a dispute between the Centre and one or more states; or a dispute between two or more states.
Murmu has asked the Supreme Court to opine if the powers of Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201, respectively, with regard to assent to Bills were justiciable and if Article 361 operated as an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the Governor’s actions under Article 200.
Key Presidential references
Delhi Laws Act, 1951: In the first-ever Presidential reference, a 7-judge Bench said the legislature could delegate its power to the executive for effective law implementation, but essential functions could not be delegated.
Kerala Education Bill, 1958: The SC emphasised the need to balance the state's right to regulate education to ensure standards and address social needs with the rights of minorities under Article 30 to administer their own institutions.
The J&K Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Bill, 1980: The SC refused to answer the Special Reference No. 1 of 1982 on whether the Bill or any of its provisions would be constitutionally invalid, if enacted.
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, 1992: The SC clarified legal position to ensure that actions taken by the parties were within the purview of the Constitution.
Presidential reference-1998 on collegium system: The SC settled the legal position on judicial appointments by clarifying that "consultation" under Article 124 meant a collective opinion, not just the CJI's view.
