President, Governors robbed of authority: AG questions SC verdict setting timeline to clear bills

NEW DELHI: Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani on Tuesday questioned the Supreme Court's decision to set a deadline for State Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures, stating that the court cannot take over the responsibilities of the executive and attempt to ewrite the constitution. The AG submitted his argument before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai during a hearing on the presidential reference matter. The AG, who is the country's top legal official, said, You (SC) bind the hands of the President. The President will exercise highest consideration whether to assent or not. The court entered into a regulation-making power here. The President and Governor are virtually robbed of their application of mind. Can the court go to the extent where it says, let me take a pen and paper and rewrite the constitution. 'What is the problem?': SC to TN, Kerala on opposition to presidential reference on bill timelines Venkataramani sought modification of the SC's April 8 ruling. Earlier on April 8, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while hearing the case of State of Tamil Nadu against Governor of Tamil Nadu, held that the State Governor must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a Bill, and within one month when a Bill is re-enacted. It also prescribed that the president should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received. During the hearing on Tuesday, the court asked the AG what would be the Constitutionally permissible recourse when it is confronted with a situation where the Governor has been keeping Bills pending for several years. Replying to this question of the court, the AG said, even in such an undesirable situation, the court cannot take over the functions of the Governor and declare assent for the Bills. As the hearing in the matter on Tuesday was inconclusive, it would continue further on Wednesday. Responding to another argument made by the court that Bills from 2020 were pending in Tamil Nadu, the AG stated that though it is true, there were certain explanations given for the delay which the court had rejected. There are many reasons why the Governor probably withheld his assent. We are not going into those reasons, he submitted. Venkatramani further contended that he was alking about the state of law and therefore not delving into the reasons. He questioned whether the court can invoke Article 142 to declare deemed assent. Challenging the SC's April 8 verdict, President Murmu had moved the top court on May 13. President Murmu, while exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), moved the apex court and said in the present circumstances, it appeared that 14 questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate K K Venugopal, for Kerala, argued that the present reference is not maintainable: The President is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74, as he is essentially conveying the Unions position. The Union cannot bypass the established mechanisms of review or curative petitions and instead use Article 143 to reopen matters already decided. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, also bouced simliar concerns and submitted that the Division Bench ruling had effectively rewritten Article 200 by eliminating any discretion previously recognised in the office of the Governor. Allowing the reference would only compound this institutional irregularity, he contended. Singhvi also said that this court was being asked to change the contents and substance of a judgment between two different parties, and this is a subversion of institutional integrity. After hearing these preliminary objections raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu to the maintainability of the Reference, the court said, we will be expressing just a view of law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case. Few of the President Murmu's 14 crucial questions were as follows: 1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? 4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor? SC seeks responses from Centre, States on Presidential reference on timeline for assent to state bills