The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that its decision on the Presidential reference concerning the Governors' powers over the bills passed by the State legislatures would not be influenced by which political party is currently in power or was previously in power.
The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu to the top court under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The reference has questioned the Court's April ruling that prescribed timelines for the President and the Governor to decide on Bills.
“We are not going to decide the matter on the basis of which political dispensation is in power or was in power,” CJI Gavai remarked today.
The Court made the observation when Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sparred over submission of details regarding instances where Governors had withheld assent to bills.
“I have a chart here of Tamil Nadu and Kerala here …,” Singhvi said.
At this stage, SG Mehta opposed the submission on merits and said he has charts for other States.
“If he wants to travel the dirty path, I have no difficulty. I am ready to travel that path as well but it is not necessary. It is a Presidential reference.”
In response, Singhvi said,
“Mr Mehta, threats don’t work.”
We are not going to decide the matter on the basis of which political dispensation is in power or was in power.Supreme Court
Singhvi added that Mehta may have a list of other States where there may be similar delays. Mehta responded he has details from 1947 about “how the Constitution was taken on a joyride.”
At this stage, CJI Gavai said there was no Article 200 and 201 in 1947. Mehta said he meant from the inception of the Constitution.
“Your lordships have understood my reference… from the date the Constitution came into force, how the Constitution was treated with contempt”.
Singhvi in response said,
“We all understand that you are threatening to show that all ills of governance are traceable to 1947. You need not say that.”
The Court then asked the counsel to restrict to legal arguments.
“We don’t want this to be converted into a platform for political…,” CJI Gavai remarked.
Singhvi then argued two wrongs would not make a right.
“That is the point he is missing. He says I have another chart, let him show that chart. He will be supporting my proposition,” he submitted.
The Court takes into account the 'lived realities and felt necessities' of time, Singhvi added.
The President's reference came after the April 11 judgment passed by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. In that verdict, the apex court held that Governors must act within a reasonable time and that constitutional silence could not be used to stall the democratic process.
The Court held that although Article 200 does not specify any time limit, it cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite delay by the Governor in acting on bills passed by the State legislature.
With regard to the President’s powers under Article 201, the Court held that her decision-making is not beyond judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months. If there is any delay beyond that period, reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned State, it had said.
Following the ruling, the President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, raising concern over the judgment's interpretation of Articles 200 and 201.
Among the questions referred are whether the Supreme Court can create procedural mechanisms in areas where the Constitution is silent and whether imposing time limits encroaches upon the discretionary space constitutionally granted to the President and Governors.
On August 19, the Court heard arguments on maintainability of the reference. On merits, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani questioned the Supreme Court's April ruling, asking whether the Court can re-write the Constitution. He submitted that the top court in the verdict had looked at the President as an "ordinary statutory authority".
On August 20, the Court observed that if a Governor is allowed to permanently withhold assent to the bills passed by State legislature, it would leave the elected State government at the whims and fancies of an unelected Governor.
In the following hearing on August 21, the Court asked whether it should be helpless when a Governor stalls a bill for years. On August 26, the Court made similar observations.
Tamil Nadu government on August 28 argued that accepting that the Governors can withhold assent even to money bills passed by a State legislature would effectively make them a "super Chief Minister" of a State.
AM Singhvi is arguing for the State at present.
Read live updates from hearing here.
[Read Live Coverage]