Last Updated:
The Supreme Court is hearing challenges to the Presidential Reference challenging its verdict to impose deadlines on the President and Governors on Bills passed by states.
The judges noted that once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on, continuing criminal proceedings against family members, particularly in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. File pic/PTI
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to set aside its April 12 verdict, where it imposed deadlines on President Droupadi Murmu and Governors to clear bills passed by states. A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said the court would only act in an “advisory” role and not sit in appeal.
The court’s decision to impose deadlines on the President and Governors had raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for Governors and the President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies.
Recommended Stories
The five-judge bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice A Chandurkar, heard preliminary objections raised by advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, and advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu.
The court said it was only sitting in an advisory jurisdiction and not sitting in appeal over the case involving Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK and Governor RN Ravi over withholding consent on Bills passed by the State Assembly.
“We will be expressing just a view of law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case,” said CJI Gavai in response to the objections by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
“We are in advisory jurisdiction, we are not in appellate. In Article 143, the court can render an opinion that a certain judgment does not lay down correct law, but it will not overrule the judgment,” said Justice Kant
Discussions On Presidential Reference
In April, the Supreme Court passed a verdict, saying 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, calling Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold Bills “illegal”.
It also said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration. This sparked questions over the jurisdiction of the judiciary over the executive.
President Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.
The governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu argued that the questions raised in the Reference were substantially and directly answered by the judgment in the TN Governor case by the two-judge bench. They said President Murmu’s reference under Article 143 cannot be invoked to revisit the issues already decided in a judgment.
Venugopal said the presidential evidence was an attempt to derail the verdict without filing a review. This was supported by Singhvi, who said that Article 143 cannot be used as an intra-court appeal; nor is it a substitute for review or curative powers.
Meanwhile, the Centre, in its written submission, has said that imposing fixed timelines on Governors and the President to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to “constitutional disorder”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, supported the argument that the Supreme Court can revisit and even modify an earlier judgment while exercising Article 143.
“This is for the first time, the President felt functional disharmony arose and will arise because of no authoritative pronouncement,” he said. “There is a constitutional functional problem- how the governor and the President would act…the highest head of executive is seeking guidance, the judgments of five, three, and two have created a constitutional problem.”
The Court will resume hearing tomorrow.
About the Author
Aveek Banerjee is a Senior Sub Editor at News18. Based in Noida with a Master’s in Global Studies, Aveek has more than three years of experience in digital media and news curation, specialising in international…Read More
Aveek Banerjee is a Senior Sub Editor at News18. Based in Noida with a Master’s in Global Studies, Aveek has more than three years of experience in digital media and news curation, specialising in international… Read More
Loading comments…
Read More
