Blitz Bureau
THE Supreme Court on July 22 issued formal notice to the Central Government and all the states in the Presidential reference case on whether the court can lay down timelines and procedures for the President and state Governors when considering Bills passed by State legislatures, reported Bar and Bench.
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar also asked Centre’s top law officer Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will appear for the Central Government. It directed that the matter will be listed for further hearing on July 29. During the hearing, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appearing for State of Kerala and Senior Advo-cate P Wilson representing the State of Tamil Nadu opposed the case on grounds of maintainability.
The Bench was constituted to decide the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Arti-cle 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President to seek the court’s opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance. The Presidential reference challenges the top court’s top court’s April ruling which prescribed time-lines for the President and the Governor to decide on Bills and also held that the Governor’s inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review.
The reference was triggered by the Supreme Court’s judgment in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, where the court ruled that the absence of a time limit under Article 200 could not be inter-preted to allow indefinite delay. The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor must act within a rea-sonable time and that constitutional silence could not be used to stall the democratic process.
The court held that although Article 200 does not specify any time limit, it cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite delay by the Governor in acting on Bills passed by the State legislature. With regard to the President’s powers under Article 201, the court had held that her decision-making is not beyond judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months. If there is any delay be-yond that period, reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned State.
Following the ruling, President Murmu referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, raising constitutional concerns about the court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. The reference ar-gued that neither Article contains any express provision empowering the court to prescribe deadlines, and that the notion of “deemed assent” in the event of delay is not contemplated by the Con-stitution.
