Presidential Reference: SC reserves verdict on question over deadlines for assent by President, governors to state Bills

After 10 days of marathon arguments, the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the Presidential Reference over its recent judgment imposing timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, reserved its verdict after hearing Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Arvind P Datar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and others for various state governments.

The Bench — which also included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar — had commenced the hearing on August 19 on 14 questions referred to it by President Droupadi Murmu.

On the last day of hearing, the Centre urged the Constitution Bench to declare that the April 8 verdict of a two-judge Bench in Tamil Nadu’s case did not lay down the correct law even as Sibal objected to it, saying no such question had been referred to by the President.

The verdict was expected before November 23 when CJI Gavai is scheduled to retire.

The top court had on April 8 set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state Assembly, terming it "illegal and erroneous".

Invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu had in May sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 questions arising out of the verdict fixing deadlines for Governors and the President to take a call on Bills passed by state Assemblies.

The Supreme Court’s opinion on a Reference under Article 143 is not binding on the President and it’s not a binding law within the meaning of 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.

"If the Governor can indefinitely withhold assent, governments formed by majority support would be at the mercy of an unelected appointee," the Bench had asked on August 21, wondering if the top court was "powerless to intervene" in case the Governor sat over Bills for years.

"If someone approaches the President saying that his case is pending for seven years in trial court and my maximum punishment (in the case) is seven years, can the President acquit me? For every problem, the solution is not adjudication by this court," Mehta submitted last month.

“We have always said that judicial activism should never become judicial terrorism or judicial adventurism,” the CJI had said.

The governments of opposition-ruled states of Karnataka, West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh accused the Centre of seeking to "abrogate the fulcrum of the Constitution" by questioning the top court's recent ruling prescribing deadlines for the President and governor to decide on Bills passed by state legislatures.

The Centre, however, on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that 90 per cent of the Bills passed by state Assemblies since 1970 received assent within a month. Mehta said that gubernatorial assents were withheld only in 20 instances of the total 17,150 Bills. Of the 20 instances where assent was withheld, seven Bills related to the recent row in Tamil Nadu, he added.

“In the last 55 years, 90 per cent Bills were assented to (by governors) within one month… and assent has been withheld in only 20 cases… I have given empirical data on how the Constitution worked,” he said.