New Delhi: Speaking about the Tamil Nadu govt versus governor case, President Droupadi Murmu asked the apex court how it could have given such a ruling when the Constitution had no such stipulations.
The President’s response came after the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, in April, permitted judicial intervention if Governors delay assent to legislative bills for an extended period. Additionally, the bench noted that the President must take a decision within three months on bill referred by Governors.
Murmu on Tuesday asked a few questions to the Supreme Court regarding its decisions regarding fixing deadlines for President and Governors nod for Bills.
According to The Times of India, the following 14 questions have been raised for the court’s consideration:
•What are the constitutional choices available to a Governor under Article 200 upon receiving a Bill?
- Is the Governor required to act solely on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when dealing with such Bills?
- Can the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 be subject to judicial scrutiny?
- Does Article 361 completely shield a Governor’s decisions under Article 200 from court review?
- In the absence of express timelines in the Constitution, can the judiciary impose time limits on Governors for acting on Bills?
- Can the President’s discretion under Article 201 be judicially reviewed?
•Is the President bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the absence of constitutional mandates?
- Must the President necessarily seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 when a Bill is reserved by a Governor?
- Can courts intervene in decisions by the Governor or President before a Bill becomes law?
•Is it permissible under Article 142 to override or substitute decisions of the President or Governor?
- Does a Bill passed by a state legislature become law without gubernatorial assent?
- Should constitutional interpretation questions first be referred to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3)?
- Does Article 142 extend beyond procedural matters to allow rulings that contradict existing laws or constitutional provisions?
- Can Centre-state disputes be resolved outside Article 131, which provides for exclusive SC jurisdiction?
The President said Articles 200 and 201, applicable to governors and President respectively, “does not stipulate any time frame or procedure” to be followed by them while considering grant or refusal of assent to a bill passed by an assembly.
“The exercise of constitutional discretion by governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers,” she said as quited by TOI.
She also resorted to Article 143(1) in seeking the SC’s opinion as the apex court has in the past delivered conflicting judgments on the justiciability of presidential assent to bills.
