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 11:39 AM IST

      J Narasimha: we did not have any impact assesment, we see the amount of litigation it has thrown, it could tell us now the vision was right or not.

      CJI: your argument, Article 200 would be one instance where Governor would exercise discretion?

      SG: There are some conventions developed. Article 163 says Governor act in aid and advice but when first government is formed, by very nature the Governor has to act independently

      CJI: we have some experience how some hon'ble governors have exercised discretion, leading to so many litigations

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:31 AM IST

      CJI says that Ambedkar had replied that discretion can be exercised by Governor only provided by the Constitution specifically.

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:26 AM IST

      SG read Ambedkar's reply on whether discretion should be vested with Governor: "Now, speaking for myself, I have no doubt in my mind that the retention in or the vesting the Governor with certain discretionary powers is in no sense contrary to or in no sense a negation of responsible government."

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:19 AM IST

      SG: Unfortunately, the first government was formed, first use of Article 356 was used in Kerala. That debate was going on whether it should be imposed, Kamath said when constitution was debated Ambedkar said it would remain a deadletter, but now Ambedkar is dead

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:18 AM IST

      SG: When Article 356 was drafted, Kamath objected to it that Central Government should not have the power to impose President's rule. To salvage the situation, Ambedkar says that I hope and trust that it remains the deadletter in the Constitution.

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:15 AM IST

      SG says in the draft article, there was discretion left to the Governor however an amendment was moved to remove any discretion left to the Governor.

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:13 AM IST

      SG: Kamath always believed in provincial supremacy...

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:12 AM IST

      SG reads Article 163 of the Constitution on Council of Ministers. Reads Constitutent Assembly debates on Article 163 where amendment was moved: “That in clause (1) of Article 143, the words ‘except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion’ be deleted.”

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:10 AM IST

      SG reads Section 9 on Council of Ministers under the Government of India Act, 1935.

      Kindly note, if he grants assent, and if he refuses, it will both be immune from challenge.

    • 20 Aug 2025 11:05 AM IST

      SG: What was in their mind did reflect in Article 200 that the Governor will have those powers that are only conferred maintaining supremacy of the election government.

    Next Story