New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict after hearing arguments for 10 days on the presidential reference, which asked if a constitutional court can impose timelines for governors and the President to assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
A Constitution bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, which commenced the hearing on August 19 on the reference, reserved the verdict.
With the conclusion of the country’s topmost law officer, Attorney General R Venkataramani’s arguments, the matter was reserved for a verdict by the bench.
The Presidential reference was made in May, soon after the judgment delivered by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act on Bills.
During the hearing, the Court clarified many times that it won’t be sitting in appeal over the TN Governor judgment and that it will only answer the Constitutional questions. States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab raised objections to the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the questions were already answered in the TN Governor judgment.
During the hearing, the Court questioned if the Governors can indefinitely withhold Bills. If the Governors can withhold Bills without returning them to the Assembly, it will place the elected Government at the whims of the Governor, the Court commented.
The Court also wondered if blanket timelines for the President and the Governor can be justified merely by certain isolated instances of delay. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani argued against the Court fixing timelines for the President and Governor for the exercise of their powers under Articles 200 and 201.
He added that the Court cannot take over the functions of the Governors by declaring deemed assent for Bills.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Union Government, also opposed the Court’s timelines for Governors. While agreeing that the Governors cannot indefinitely sit on bills, SG Mehta asserted that Courts cannot lay down a straitjacket timeline. Issuing mandamus to Constitutional high functionaries in relation to the exercise of their discretionary powers is a violation of the principle of the separation of powers.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve (for State of Maharashtra), Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani (for State of Chhattisgarh) etc, argued in support of the Union’s position.
