Tamil Nadu Bills case: President Murmu seeks SC’s opinion on
Tamil Nadu Bills case: President Murmu seeks SC’s opinion on setting timelines on assent of Bills
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, President Droupadi Murmu, in a reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution
NEW DELHI — In the aftermath of the Supreme Court verdict in the Tamil Nadu
Bills case, President Droupadi Murmu, in a reference made under Article 143 of
the Constitution, has asked the top court to consider whether timelines can be
imposed on Governors to act on Bills in the absence of a
constitutionally-prescribed time limit.
The President asked the apex court to report its opinion
on constitutional options available to a Governor when a Bill is presented to
him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India.
“Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by
the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him
when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of
India?” the President asked the Supreme Court.
Further, it questioned if the exercise of constitutional
discretion by the Governor on Bills is justiciable, when Article 361 of the
Constitution puts an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to
gubernatorial actions.
“In the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed timeline
and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed
and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the
exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution
of India?” President Murmu asked the top court to consider and report its
opinion thereon.
Earlier in April, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court,
using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, resolved a
standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi over the
delay in granting assent to Bills passed by the Assembly.
It ruled that Governor Ravi's refusal to approve 10 Bills
in Tamil Nadu was both "illegal and arbitrary" and set a three-month
deadline for Presidential and gubernatorial approval of Bills passed by the
legislature for a second time.
"The President is required to take a decision on the
Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three
months from the date on which such reference is received," said a Bench of
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
If there is no decision within this time frame, states
are entitled to file writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus against the
President, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench clarified.
The apex court used the powers for the purpose of
declaring the 10 withheld Bills as deemed to have been assented to on the date
when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the state
legislature.
The top court held that once a Bill is returned,
re-passed by the legislature, and presented again to the Governor, it is not
open for the Governor to reserve it for the President’s consideration.
Additionally, the President is now under an obligation to
provide reasons for their decision, which must be communicated to the state
government.
Further, it suggested that the President should consult
the Supreme Court on Bills involving Constitutional issues.
The judgment, apparently, brought Presidential actions
under judicial review by favouring a three-month deadline for granting assent
to Bills.
The issue took a new twist after Vice President Jagdeep
Dhankhar used strong words against the judiciary, comparing Article 142 to a
‘nuclear missile’ available to the judiciary against democratic forces.
