NEW DELHI: After a 10-day marathon hearing, the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai on Thursday reserved its verdict on President Droupadi Murmu’s reference case seeking the top court’s opinion on whether timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for granting assent to State bills.
The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench reserved its verdict on Thursday after extensive hearings involving the Centre, several state governments, political leaders, parties and other respondents.
The five-judge Constitution bench -- hearing the Presidential Reference case -- was headed by the CJI Gavai and four other senior-most judges of the SC, comprised of Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar.
Earlier on April 8, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while hearing the case of State of Tamil Nadu against Governor of Tamil Nadu, held that the State Governor must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a Bill, and within one month when a Bill is re-enacted. It also 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 a reference is received.
President Murmu, while exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), moved the apex court on May 13. In the presidential reference, challenging the SC's April 8 verdict, it appeared that 14 questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Out of 14 crucial questions, the most important were as follows:
1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
Earlier on July 22, the top Court had agreed to examine President Droupadi Murmu's reference on 14 questions on the issue of timelines.
During the course of the hearings, the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, a senior law officer appearing for the Centre, sought modification of the April 8 verdict and argued that the SC can't impose timelines on the Governors and the President to grant assent on State bills.
Although he had agreed and admitted that the Governor has no power to sit on Bills endlessly, however he clarified that the SC can't lay down timelines on these two constitutional functionaries.
On the other hand, respondents, including states like: Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and many others, opposed the Presidential Reference and submitted that the April 8 verdict of the SC imposing timelines on the Governor and the President to grant assent on State bills, should not be modified.