Crime Today News
Taking strong objection to the April 8 judgment of the Supreme Court, which fixed deadlines for the Governor and the President to decide on state Bills in the Tamil Nadu government vs Governor case, President Droupadi Murmu asked the Apex Court how could it give such a ruling when the Constitution had no such stipulations.
The President further expressed her displeasure over the Central government invoking the President’s rarely used powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution.
She said the Union government, being aware that a petition seeking review of the 415-page judgment by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan would not yield positive outcome as it was ought be considered by the same Bench in chamber, the Centre invoked the President’s rarely used powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Apex Court’s opinion on a myriad contentious issues thrown up by the judgment, which was a clear overreach.
Articles 200 and 201, applicable to the Governors and the President respectively, did not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by them, while considering either grant or refusal of assent to a Bill passed by an Assembly, noted the President.
She said the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, were essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including integrity, federalism, the uniformity of laws, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the security of the nation.
President Murmu resorted to Article 143(1) in seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion, as in the past, the Apex Court has delivered conflicting judgments on the justiciability of presidential assent to bills.
Article 200 mandates a Governor over the presentation of a bill passed by the Assembly, to either grant assent or return the bill as soon as possible, excluding money bills, for reconsideration by the House. The provision says the Governor shall ‘not withhold assent’ when the Bill, after having been reconsidered, is sent to him.
However, when a Governor reserved a bill for consideration of the President, she was mandated under Article 201 to declare whether she assented to the bill or withheld it.
President Murmu said the Constitution, however, did not prescribe a timeframe for the President to take a particular action once the Bill, after having been reconsidered by the Assembly, was 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.
The Apex Court held that if the Bill was re-passed by the House and resent to him, the Governor must grant assent within a month. The top court of the country further fixed a three-month deadline for the President to decide on whether to grant or refuse assent to a Bill.
The President further expressed her displeasure over the Apex Court using its powers under Article 142 to rule that the 10 bills pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor would be deemed to have been assented to.
She said the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribed the powers of the President and the Governor.
President Murmu also questioned the logic behind the Apex Court’s suggestion that it would be better if the President sought the opinion of the Supreme Court in advance on whether to give assent to the bills reserved for her by the Governor.
She sought the response from the top court of the country on the 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 were either occupied by constitutional provisions or statutory provisions.
The president further questioned the states for increasingly using writ jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 (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, were federal issues involving interpretation of the Constitution.
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.
Tired of too many ads?
go ad free now
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.
Deemed assent concept alien to constitutional scheme: Prez
The President’s 14 questions
Prez: Deemed assent concept alien to constitutional scheme
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, 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.
Tired of too many ads?
go ad free now
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.”
This article first appeared on India Legal
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
