New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Union government and all state governments on President Droupadi Murmu’s crucial reference seeking clarity on the constitutional powers of governors and the President to grant assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201.
A constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, posted the matter for hearing next Tuesday to allow appearances by all respondents.
The CJI indicated that the court plans to hear the case in August.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani was requested to assist the court.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, waived formal notice.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal, representing Kerala, flagged concerns over the maintainability of the presidential reference.
Similarly, senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, noted that issues raised are already covered by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case and said Tamil Nadu would contest the maintainability as well.
The reference comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s recent landmark judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, where the court ruled that governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills (popularly termed as “pocket veto”), and set a maximum three-month timeline for decisions.
The court further held that if a governor reserves a bill for the President, the President too must act within three months.
It also declared deemed assent for 10 bills pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor for over a year.
The ruling drew sharp criticism from former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who questioned whether courts could direct the President, and described the court’s Article 142 powers as a “nuclear missile”.
The presidential reference now seeks the court’s opinion on 14 key constitutional questions, including:
Whether courts can prescribe timelines for the President or a governor to act on bills in the absence of specific constitutional limits;
Whether the governor is bound by the advice of the state cabinet under Article 200.
Whether the governor or President’s discretion in assenting to Bills is justiciable.
Whether the Supreme Court’s Article 142 powers extend to issuing orders contrary to constitutional provisions.
Whether the Supreme Court can resolve Union-State disputes outside a suit under Article 131.
Whether Bills become law without the governor’s assent.
Justices Narasimha and Chandurkar on the bench are also hearing the Kerala governor matter, where the state argues that the Tamil Nadu judgment applies, while the Union government disagrees, contending that the court should wait for the outcome of this presidential reference.
The court will take up this significant constitutional matter next Tuesday, with its decision likely to shape the contours of legislative assent powers and Centre-State relations for years to come.
