 |
|
The Supreme Court's recent decision to issue notice to the Union Government and all State Governments regarding the Presidential Reference concerning the powers of the Governor and the President in assenting to bills marks a significant juncture in Indian constitutional law. This Presidential Reference, initiated by President Droupadi Murmu, stems from concerns regarding the interpretation and application of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which delineate the powers of the Governor and the President, respectively, in relation to bills passed by state legislatures. The genesis of this reference lies in the backdrop of increasing instances of delays and disagreements between state governments and Governors regarding the assent to bills, prompting a need for clarity and a definitive interpretation of the constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court, recognizing the gravity of the matter, has constituted a Constitution Bench to deliberate upon the complex legal and constitutional issues involved. The decision to hear the matter expeditiously, with a proposed hearing date in August, underscores the Court's commitment to resolving the ambiguities and ensuring the smooth functioning of the legislative process within the framework of the Constitution. The involvement of the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India further highlights the importance of the case and the Union Government's keen interest in its outcome. The responses from the State Governments, particularly Kerala and Tamil Nadu, indicate a divergence of opinions and a potential challenge to the maintainability of the Reference. This adds another layer of complexity to the proceedings and suggests that the Court will need to address fundamental questions of constitutional interpretation and the scope of judicial review. The reference is primarily driven by the judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case, a pivotal ruling that sought to set timelines for the Governor and the President to grant assent to bills. This judgment attempted to address the issue of Governors exercising a 'pocket veto' over bills, effectively delaying or preventing their enactment into law. The Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu case had fixed an upper limit of three months for the Governor's decision and mandated that if a bill is reserved for the President's assent, the President must act within three months. Furthermore, the Court had stated that any breach of these timelines would entitle the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus, a judicial order compelling the Governor to perform their constitutional duty. The criticism leveled against the Tamil Nadu Governor's case by former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who questioned the Court's power to issue directions to the President, adds a political dimension to the legal debate. Dhankhar's remarks, characterizing Article 142 power as a 'nuclear missile' wielded by the judiciary, reflect a concern about judicial overreach and the potential erosion of the separation of powers. This criticism has further fueled the debate surrounding the scope of judicial review and the extent to which the Court can prescribe timelines for the exercise of constitutional powers by the President and the Governor. The President's Reference encapsulates a series of critical questions that touch upon the very foundations of the Indian constitutional framework. These questions delve into the constitutional options available to a Governor when a bill is presented for assent, the extent to which the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers, and the justiciability of the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 200. They also inquire into whether Article 361 provides absolute immunity from judicial review for the Governor's actions, and whether timelines can be imposed on the Governor's exercise of powers in the absence of constitutionally prescribed limits. The Reference extends to similar questions concerning the President's powers under Article 201, including the justiciability of the President's discretionary powers and the possibility of judicially prescribing timelines for the exercise of those powers. It further probes whether the President is required to seek the Supreme Court's advice under Article 143 when a Governor reserves a bill for presidential assent. The Reference also raises fundamental questions about the timing of judicial intervention, asking whether the decisions of the Governor and the President can be challenged before a law comes into force, and whether courts can adjudicate upon the contents of a bill before it becomes law. Furthermore, it questions whether the exercise of constitutional powers by the President and the Governor can be substituted under Article 142, and whether a state law is considered to be in force without the Governor's assent. The Reference also seeks clarification on the application of Article 145(3), which mandates that substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution be referred to a bench of at least five judges. It also addresses the scope of the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142, asking whether they are limited to procedural matters or extend to issuing directions that are inconsistent with substantive constitutional provisions. Finally, the Reference questions whether the Constitution bars any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments, except through a suit under Article 131. The fact that Justice Narasimha and Justice Chandurkar are also hearing the Kerala Governor matter, which the Kerala State Government contends is covered by the Tamil Nadu judgment, adds another layer of complexity. The Union opposes this view, arguing that the judgment does not cover the Kerala Governor matter and suggesting that the Court should await the outcome of the Presidential Reference. This underlines the broader significance of the Presidential Reference, as its outcome will likely have implications for multiple ongoing disputes between state governments and Governors. The resolution of these questions will have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power between the Union and the States, the role of the Governor, and the extent of judicial oversight over the legislative process. The Supreme Court's deliberations on this matter will undoubtedly shape the future of Indian constitutional law and governance. The questions posed by the President are not merely academic exercises; they represent a genuine effort to clarify the ambiguities and address the challenges that have arisen in the practical application of Articles 200 and 201. By seeking the Supreme Court's guidance, the President aims to ensure that the exercise of constitutional powers by the Governor and the President is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Constitution, and that the legislative process is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The outcome of the Presidential Reference will not only provide clarity on the specific issues raised but will also have a broader impact on the relationship between the different branches of government and the overall functioning of the Indian democratic system. The Supreme Court's role in this process is crucial, as it is tasked with providing an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution that will guide the actions of the President, the Governors, and the State Governments in the years to come. The case details, listed as 'IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA|SPL.REF. No. 1/2025,' provides a clear reference point for tracking the progress of the case and accessing relevant documents and judgments. The case will be closely watched by legal scholars, political analysts, and the general public, as it addresses fundamental questions about the nature of Indian federalism and the role of constitutional actors in the legislative process. The Court's ultimate decision will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the future of Indian democracy and the balance of power between the Union and the States.
The crux of the Presidential Reference revolves around the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which govern the Governor's and the President's powers concerning the assent, withholding, or reservation of bills passed by state legislatures. Article 200 outlines the options available to a Governor when a bill is presented for assent, including giving assent, withholding assent, reserving the bill for the President's consideration, or returning the bill to the legislature with a message requesting reconsideration. If the bill is passed again by the legislature, with or without amendments, the Governor is not obliged to give assent. Article 201 deals with the situation where a bill is reserved by the Governor for the President's consideration. In such cases, the President can either give assent, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration. The central issue is the absence of explicitly defined timelines within these articles for the exercise of these powers. This ambiguity has led to situations where Governors have delayed assenting to bills, effectively stalling the legislative process. The Supreme Court, in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case, attempted to address this issue by setting timelines for the Governor's decision, but this has raised concerns about judicial overreach and the separation of powers. The President's Reference seeks to clarify whether the Court has the power to impose such timelines, and whether doing so is consistent with the constitutional scheme. The questions raised by the President cover a wide range of issues, from the scope of the Governor's discretionary powers to the justiciability of the Governor's and the President's actions. One key question is whether the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when exercising their powers under Article 200. This is a critical issue because it touches upon the nature of the Governor's role as a constitutional head who is generally expected to act on the advice of the elected government. However, the Governor also has certain discretionary powers, and the extent to which these powers can be exercised independently of the Council of Ministers is a matter of ongoing debate. Another important question is whether the Governor's and the President's actions are subject to judicial review. Article 361 provides some protection to the President and the Governor from legal proceedings, but the extent of this protection is not absolute. The Supreme Court has held that the actions of constitutional functionaries are subject to judicial review if they are found to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of the Constitution. However, the scope of this review is limited, and the Court is generally reluctant to interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers by the President and the Governor. The Presidential Reference also raises the question of whether the Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 to substitute the decisions of the President and the Governor. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decrees or make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. However, the scope of this power is not unlimited, and the Court has generally held that it cannot be used to override express provisions of the Constitution or to create new laws. The reference also seeks clarification on the application of Article 145(3), which requires that substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution be referred to a bench of at least five judges. This is a procedural issue, but it is important because it ensures that complex constitutional questions are considered by a larger bench of the Court, which is more likely to have the expertise and experience necessary to address them adequately. Finally, the reference raises the question of whether the Constitution bars any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments, except through a suit under Article 131. Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear disputes between the Union Government and one or more States, or between two or more States. However, the scope of this jurisdiction is limited to disputes that involve a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. The reference seeks to clarify whether other forms of dispute resolution, such as advisory opinions under Article 143, are also available in cases involving the Union Government and the State Governments. The answers to these questions will have a significant impact on the balance of power between the Union and the States, the role of the Governor, and the extent of judicial oversight over the legislative process. The Supreme Court's deliberations on this matter will undoubtedly shape the future of Indian constitutional law and governance.
The timing of the Presidential Reference is particularly significant, given the ongoing disputes between various state governments and their respective Governors. Several states have accused their Governors of deliberately delaying assent to bills passed by the legislature, thereby frustrating the will of the elected government. In some cases, Governors have reserved bills for the President's consideration without providing any clear reasons for doing so. This has led to accusations of political interference and a breakdown in the relationship between the state government and the Governor. The Tamil Nadu Governor's case was a direct response to this issue, and the Supreme Court's attempt to set timelines for the Governor's decision was aimed at preventing Governors from exercising a 'pocket veto' over bills. However, this decision has been criticized by some, who argue that it infringes upon the Governor's constitutional powers and undermines the separation of powers. The President's Reference is an attempt to address these concerns and to provide a clearer framework for the exercise of powers under Articles 200 and 201. By seeking the Supreme Court's guidance on these issues, the President aims to ensure that the relationship between the Governor and the state government is based on mutual respect and adherence to the Constitution. The questions raised in the reference are not merely academic exercises; they represent a genuine effort to clarify the ambiguities and address the challenges that have arisen in the practical application of Articles 200 and 201. The President's decision to seek the Supreme Court's advice reflects a commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the constitutional framework is interpreted in a way that promotes good governance and the effective functioning of the Indian democratic system. The outcome of the Presidential Reference will have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power between the Union and the States, the role of the Governor, and the extent of judicial oversight over the legislative process. The Supreme Court's deliberations on this matter will undoubtedly shape the future of Indian constitutional law and governance. The case will be closely watched by legal scholars, political analysts, and the general public, as it addresses fundamental questions about the nature of Indian federalism and the role of constitutional actors in the legislative process. The Court's ultimate decision will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the future of Indian democracy and the balance of power between the Union and the States. The involvement of the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India further underscores the importance of the case and the Union Government's keen interest in its outcome. The responses from the State Governments, particularly Kerala and Tamil Nadu, indicate a divergence of opinions and a potential challenge to the maintainability of the Reference. This adds another layer of complexity to the proceedings and suggests that the Court will need to address fundamental questions of constitutional interpretation and the scope of judicial review. The case details, listed as 'IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA|SPL.REF. No. 1/2025,' provides a clear reference point for tracking the progress of the case and accessing relevant documents and judgments. The case will be closely watched by legal scholars, political analysts, and the general public, as it addresses fundamental questions about the nature of Indian federalism and the role of constitutional actors in the legislative process. The Court's ultimate decision will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the future of Indian democracy and the balance of power between the Union and the States.