A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court volition instrumentality up the Presidential Reference connected issues arising retired of the apical court’s caller verdict mounting a deadline for assent to authorities Bills for proceeding connected July 22.
Advertisement
Headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, the Bench volition besides comprise Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.
Invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu had successful May sought the Supreme Court’s sentiment connected 14 questions arising retired of its April 8 verdict fixing deadlines for Governors and the President to instrumentality a telephone connected Bills passed by authorities Assemblies.
In an unprecedented verdict, the apex tribunal had restricted the President’s discretionary powers connected Bills referred by Governors nether Article 201 of the Constitution and acceptable a three-month timeframe for her to determine connected the Bills reserved for her consideration.
Reserving a Bill connected grounds specified arsenic “personal dissatisfaction of the governor, governmental expediency oregon immoderate different extraneous oregon irrelevant considerations” is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would beryllium liable to beryllium acceptable speech forthwith connected that crushed alone, the apical tribunal had said.
Murmu invoked Article 143 of the Constitution — a seldom utilized proviso nether which the President is empowered to consult the apical tribunal and question its sentiment connected questions of instrumentality oregon fact.
The Supreme Court’s sentiment connected a Reference nether Article 143 is not binding connected the President and it’s not a binding instrumentality wrong the meaning of Article 141. It’s unfastened to the apical tribunal to reply the notation oregon not. However, successful lawsuit it does not privation to reply the reference, the tribunal has to springiness reasons.
The Presidential Reference was made successful the aftermath of terrible disapproval of the verdict by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar who questioned the rationale down the Supreme Court prescribing timelines for the President and the Governor successful the lack of immoderate specified provisions nether the Constitution.
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court had connected April 8 acceptable speech Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s determination to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President adjacent aft they were re-enacted by the authorities Assembly, terming it “illegal and erroneous”.
Exercising its plenary powerfulness nether Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench had declared that the 10 Bills would beryllium deemed to person received the Governor’s assent erstwhile they were presented to him for the 2nd clip aft having been passed by the authorities legislature again.
While restricting discretionary powers of the President, a Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala had said, “The President is required to instrumentality a determination connected the Bills reserved for his information by the Governor wrong a play of 3 months from the day connected which specified notation is received. In lawsuit of immoderate hold beyond this period, due reasons would person to beryllium recorded and conveyed to the acrophobic State.”
“Where the President exhibits inaction successful making a determination erstwhile a Bill is presented to him (her) for assent nether Article 201 and specified inaction exceeds the time-limit (of 3 months) past it shall beryllium unfastened to the State Government to question a writ of mandamus from this Court,” the Bench, which besides included Justice R Mahadevan, had said.
However, Murmu has sought to cognize if successful the lack of a constitutionally prescribed clip limit, and the mode of workout of powers by the Governor and the President nether Articles 200 and 201, respectively, the Supreme Court could enforce timelines connected workout of powers by the 2 law functionaries.
The President has asked the Supreme Court to clarify if its powers nether Article 142 were constricted to matters of procedural instrumentality oregon extended to issuing directions oregon orders contrary to oregon inconsistent with the existing substantive oregon procedural provisions of the Constitution oregon immoderate instrumentality successful force.
She has besides raised the contented of states approaching the apical tribunal nether Article 32 meant for enforcement of cardinal rights and not nether Article 131 which deals with the Supreme Court’s archetypal jurisdiction successful a quality betwixt the Centre and 1 oregon much states; oregon a quality betwixt 2 oregon much states.
She sought to cognize of the Constitution Bar immoderate different jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resoluteness disputes betwixt the Union Government and State Governments but by mode of a suit nether Article 131 of the Constitution.
Murmu has asked the Supreme Court to opine if the powers of Governors and the President nether Article 200 and 201, respectively, with respect to assent to Bills passed by authorities Assemblies were justiciable and if Article 361 operated arsenic implicit barroom to judicial reappraisal successful narration to the Governor’s actions nether Article 200.
English (US) ·