SC To Hear President’s Questions on Timelines
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai sought the responses of the Centre and the States by next Tuesday, observing the issue concerns not only one state but the entire country.
New Delhi: A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine the 14 crucial questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu on its April 8 verdict that stipulated timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. It also issued notices to the Centre and all the states seeking their responses in a week.
The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar will commence hearing on the Presidential reference in mid-August.
During a brief hearing, Senior advocates K.K. Venugopal and P. Wilson, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, opposed the reference and questioned its maintainability. The CJI, however, said the objections can be raised later when the matter will be taken up.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised rarely-used powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the Bills passed by state assemblies.
The President's decision came in view of the April 8 verdict of the top court passed in a matter over the powers of Governor in dealing with Bills challenged by the Tamil Nadu government.
The verdict for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. Before the verdict, the President and Governors used to delay giving assent to Bills, using the lack of clear timelines in the Constitution, which later was called a pocket veto.
In a five-page May 13 reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor, President under Article 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.