Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-4 : Live Updates
A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the SupremeCourt will hear today the Presidential Reference by President Droupadi Murmu on 14 questions on the power to assent on Bills, including whether Court can fix timelines for the President/Governor to decide on Bills. The Presidential Reference, made under Article 143, came a month after Supreme Court's judgment in Tamil Nadu Governor's matter, wherein...
A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the SupremeCourt will hear today the Presidential Reference by President Droupadi Murmu on 14 questions on the power to assent on Bills, including whether Court can fix timelines for the President/Governor to decide on Bills.
The Presidential Reference, made under Article 143, came a month after Supreme Court's judgment in Tamil Nadu Governor's matter, wherein the Court held that the Governor did not act bona fide in reserving Bills to President. It held those bills as deemed assented. In the judgment passed by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, the Court held that the President must act on the Bills reserved for her under Article 201 within 3 months:
The reference will be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.
Follow this page for live updates from today's hearing.
Arguments concluded for the side arguing in favour of the reference. Intervenors not allowed to argue.
Krishnakumar: is there some concept of temporary withholding? it is incidental to withholding in the main part. how long is to long for the Governor to have not acted? in what situation the court draws a line?
Sr Adv Guru Krishnakumar: please see the nature of functions they are performing. Where constitutional framers needed to add timelimit, they included in proviso.
Navare: there are political solutions, for a democracy to be vibrant, its the expression of people's wise. Sorry to say, two or five person sitting to say I have the solution, it may not be vibrant.
CJI: bill passed by representatives of the people, will have to be given effect
SG Mehta: on maintainability of writ, Article 131 and 32, whether the Governor would like to invite? I will get the instructions today. If I argue, please then give me 20 minutes if I have to argue.
Sr Adv for Haryana: constitutional silences which need to be deferred to. Our courts have acknowledged, they are to be deferred to. In Narula's case, the prescription of disqualifcation, can it be done through judicial review? court said where there are constitutional silence, it needs to be deferred to.
Navare: I don't say if the Governor sits on bill the court is powerless, but mandamus and timeline for highest constitutional authority-it should not be there
Navare: Article 213(1)(b) [(b) he would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill containing the same provisions for the consideration of the President; or] will have a reading when Article 200 is read in a way that Governor has discretion
Navare: some popular view is that power is only for repugnancy, please look at Article 213- legislative power of governor.
Sr Adv Vinay Navare: I will show five provisions which answers if the bill can be withheld even if it deals with State subject? Article 286, 253, 287, 202 r/w 203.
Navare: how can in federalism structure President/Governor has some kind of fetter? Scrutiny shows if Article 201 is read in a way, it will affect these five provisions
Jethmalani retierates that it should have been referred to five judge bench
CJI: we are not sitting in appeal
Jethmalani: what is the remedy when assent is wrongly withheld? Article 32 is not the remedy because it is meant for fundamental rights violation. There may be remedy elsewhere, but not Article 32
J Narasimha: we are not considering Article 32 petition
Jethmalani: i am not advancing the argument what other remedies lie