Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-2 : Live Updates

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

20 Aug 2025 10:21 AM IST

  • Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills Assent-DAY-2 : 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.

    Yesterday, Senior Advocates KK Venugopal (for State of Kerala) and Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for State of Tamil Nadu) raised preliminary objections. They argued:

    1. Most questions raised in reference are squarely covered by Tamil Nadu judgment

    2. Reference can't be made on settled questions.

    3. Attempt has been made to entertain intra-court appeal exercising appellant jurisdiction which is not permissible under advisory jurisdiction.

    Attorney General R Venkataramani concluded his arguments

    1. Tamil Nadu judgment in breach of various judgments

    2. A reference to larger bench was sought but ignored

    3. Not conclusive authority on Articles 200 and 201 exists; reference is to decided which one is the conclusive authority

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta began his arguments post lunch yesterday. He argued:

    1. Highest executive authority can't be tied down to say you are bound by timelines

    2. Initially timelines to bound the President was there but it was consciously removed

    Live Updates

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:45 PM IST

      SG: if he does not choose option of first proviso, the bill falls through. Otherwise it has no meaning.

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:42 PM IST

      CJI: first proviso to that Article deals with a situation where Governor is bound to give assent

      SG: he can still refer

      CJI: according to you, its his choice?

      SG: let me explain again, he has three options in main proviso- give assent, withholds- bill falls or refers to the President. Fourth option, if repugnacy or tweeking required, return to the house to reconsider, once required, the embargo is he can't withhold but then he can still refer to President. That is not prohibited.

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:40 PM IST

      SG: the power of assent is quasi-legislative.




       


    • 20 Aug 2025 2:37 PM IST

      SG: The parliament amended the law because judiciary is unable to do within a time limit

      CJI: as well as election commission, J Ashok Sen specifically says that the proceedings take so long that...

      SG: symbol matter

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:35 PM IST

      SG: Right from Kihoton, speaker is held to be a tribunal

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:35 PM IST

      SG refers to Kameshwar Singh judgment.

      SG: power with plenary, it has to be left to his constitutional discretionary. That's the way power of constitutional functionaries function.

      J Narasimha: take 10th Schedule, law was made everybody supported. Speaker is the best authority, today if we were to interpret 10th Schedule, in our experience we might decide in a different manner. Interpretation is not frozen, it is a process. Without reference to poltiical process which happens, it would be difficult

      CJI: can the interpretation be static? In telangana case, there was that the timeline was not there for Speaker and it was that J Rohintan introduced timeline..the law officer Sen Tgave an example that by the time we own proceedings before election commission, it has become infructuous...we will get in a situation operation successful but operation dead. We believe in separation of powers,

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:29 PM IST

      SG: In some cases, President returns the Bill and Bill is again passed, it comes to the President, it dies. If we were to accept withhold in the main provision to mean temporarily decided to not give assent- suppose main part of 200 contemplated withhold means suspension of powers- as Punjab Gov judgment says refer to the House. Then it would have been that the President 'shall' grant assent.

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:27 PM IST

      SG: Why there is requirement of Presidential assent? that Bill does not be in conflict with national policy stipulated.

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:27 PM IST

      SG: he has wisdom. Governor are seasoned people as political parties, years of experience. Whenever bill is presented, Governor calls CM says these provisions are seriously doubtful. Sometimes, the CM says we will sort it out. Every problem which may arise under Constitution may not have solution in legal proceedings. When Bill is referred to President, there is a procedure stipulated.

    • 20 Aug 2025 2:25 PM IST

      SG: There is nothing above President. So, both provisions in same document, word withhold used in two places leads to one conclusion. Central passes a law, and some State passes a law that this law will not apply and Bill is presented, can he assent? no. can he refer? no. palpably wrong. Withhold in rarest of rare circumstances- his existence as constitutional functionaries and his oath to defend the Constitution requires him. Unless this is read, Governor office will become postman.

    Next Story