Can SC fix deadlines for President, governors’ assent to bills?: Murmu | India News

President Droupadi Murmu (File photo)

NEW DELHI: In a sharp response to the April 8 verdict of Supreme Court, fixing deadlines for the governor and the President to decide on state Bills in the Tamil Nadu govt versus governor case, President Droupadi Murmu on Wednesday asked the apex court how it could have given such a ruling when the Constitution had no such stipulations.Aware that a petition seeking review of the 415-page judgment by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan would not yield positive outcome as it is ought be considered by the same bench in chamber, the Union govt invoked the President’s rarely used powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek SC’s opinion on a myriad contentious issues thrown up by the judgment, which it considers to be a clear overreach. Specifically, the President sought SC’s view on 14 questions.

The President’s 14 questions

Prez: Deemed assent concept alien to constitutional schemeThe 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, adding that she 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.Article 200 mandates the governor, on presentation of a bill passed by an assembly, to grant assent or “as soon as possible” return the bill, excluding Money bills, for reconsideration by the House. The provision also lays down that the governor “shall not withhold assent” when the bill, after having been reconsidered, is sent to him .However, when a governor reserves a bill for consideration of the President, she under Article 201 is mandated to declare whether she assents to the bill or withholds it. The Constitution, however, does not prescribe a timeframe for the President to take a particular action once the bill , after having been reconsidered by the assembly, is presented to her again for assent.Without any express provision in the Constitution, the bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had set a three-month deadline for the governor to either grant or return the bill to the House.If the bill is re-passed by the House and resent to him, then the governor must grant assent within a month, SC had ruled. It had also fixed a three-month deadline for the President to decide whether to grant or refuse assent to a bill.Critical of the SC using its Article 142 powers to rule that the 10 bills pending with the Tamil Nadu governor would be deemed to have been assented to, the President said, “The concept of a deemed assent of the President and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the President and the governor”.The President also questioned the logic behind SC ruling that suggested that it would be better if the President seeks the opinion of the apex court in advance on whether to give assent to bills reserved for her by the governors.She said SC needs to give its opinion also contours and scope of provisions contained in Article 142 (which gives omnibus power to SC to do complete justice) “in the context of issues (assent to bills) which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions.In addition, she questioned the states increasingly using writ jurisdiction of the SC under Article 32 (which is meant for remedying violations of fundamental rights of citizens) instead of Article 131 (Centre-state dispute to be adjudicated only by the SC) to adjudicate issues “which by their nature are federal issues involving interpretation of the Constitution.”