SC reserves verdict on Presidential reference over Governors, President's power on state bills

New Delhi [India], September 11 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its decision on the Presidential reference filed by the President of India Droupadi Murmu, seeking the top court's opinion over various constitutional questions, pertinently, whether courts can impose timelines on the Governor and the President to grant their assent to bills passed by the State legislature.
After having heard submissions from the Union government, the States supporting the Presidential reference and the States challenging it, extensively for ten days, a five-judge (Constitutional) bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai today concluded the hearing.
"It has been a very enlightening debate, thank you very much, everyone", the CJI said as the bench reserved the judgment.
Alongside CJI Gavai, the Constitutional bench comprised of Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar.

On the tenth and final day of the matter, the Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta continued his submissions from where he had left off yesterday. Mr. Mehta stated that the Governor can withhold a bill, but it's an option that he uses rarely.
Substantiating his argument, Mr. Mehta added that the power to withhold a bill is only used by the Governor when he receives a Bill which is "shockingly unconstitutional".
In response to this submission, the CJI opined that framers of our Constitution expected that there should be harmony between the State government and the Governor appointed by the Centre.
"Normally, the provincial government was taken into consideration while appointing Governors", the CJI stated.
To this, Mr. Mehta agreed that there has to be harmony. But, when there are Bills which are shockingly unconstitutional, they simply cannot be assented to, he highlighted.
"Suppose the Legislative Assembly of a State passes a bill which states that, henceforth, this State will not be part of the Union of India. Therefore, in such a case, he (the Governor) has to withhold it", the SGI said.
Mr Mehta further submitted that the Courts, when adjudicating matters over Bills, have always used the term "falls through" in the context of Bills when a Governor has withheld his assent on a Bill which eventually did not pass.
"Why is the term 'falling through' being used by Courts? From where did it (the bill) fall through? What's the origin of the term? It means, it dies, if the amendment (bill) is not accepted and it falls through, it dies", Mr Mehta asserted.
The Attorney General of India (AG) R. Venkataramani, also representing the Centre, argued that the Governor's role in handling a Bill under Article 200 is an integral part of the law-making process, which starts when the Bill is introduced and ends when it becomes law. This process cannot be open to any judicial remedial process, the AG added.
He further contended that citizens cannot approach the court and say a law must be framed without delay or framed in a particular way. "If that is so, there is hardly any scope for the State to step in and articulate a cause of action purportedly on behalf of the residents of the State", the AG argued.
During the hearing in the matter that lasted for 10 days, various States, some in support of the Presidential reference and some challenging it, moved the Court and made arguments.
States supporting the reference include Goa, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Puducherry, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh, who contended that courts cannot set timelines for the top-constitutional executives to decide on bills.
States opposing it are Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana and Meghalaya, which challenged the maintainability of the reference.
The top court had provided timelines for both sides to make their submissions. Today, after hearing both sides for a 10-day period, the five-judge bench reserved its judgment. (ANI)