SC questions Kerala, TN on their objection to President seeking views

The Supreme Court has questioned Kerala and Tamil Nadu on their objection to President Murmu seeking views from the apex court under Article 143 regarding assent to state bills

The Supreme Court has raised questions to the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu regarding their preliminary objection to the President of India seeking views from the apex court. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice BR Gavai directed the counsels of both states to clarify their objection to the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143.

 

The reference concerns a ruling by the Supreme Court that set timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan invoked special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and Governors to act on state bills.

 

 

The court clarified that it was offering only a view on the law, not a decision in the Tamil Nadu case.

 

“We will be expressing just a view of the law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case (April 8),” the CJI added.

 

Justice Surya Kant stated that the court is in an advisory, not appellate, jurisdiction.

 

“In Article 143, the court can render an opinion that a certain judgment does not lay down correct law, but it will not overrule the judgment,” Justice Surya Kant noted.

 

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, on Tuesday, informed a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the powers of the Governor and President to give assent to bills, are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. He argued that the Tamil Nadu judgment, which fixes timelines for these authorities, dilutes their power to reject bills that do not comply with the Constitution.

 

“To say the basic structure is only informed by a democratic principle confined to the legislature is not an advisable interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. Articles 200 and 201 are also part of the basic structure, where the President and the Governor play an important role in ensuring that if a bill does not comply with the Constitution, they have the power to stop it,” Venkataramani said.

 

Following the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.

 

On May 13, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court regarding various aspects of law, including the scope of powers under Article 142.

 

In response, Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed applications questioning the maintainability of the reference. They urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference, claiming it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure.

 

Meanwhile, the Central government supported the reference, asserting that the powers of Governors and the President to act on bills cannot be constrained by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Wednesday.