On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Presidential Reference concerning the constitutional powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201, with Attorney General for India (AG) R Venkataramani questioning whether the judiciary could effectively “rewrite the Constitution” by prescribing timelines for granting assent to Bills.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani posed the pointed query while arguing before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, with Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, “Can the court go to the extent where it says let me take pen and paper and rewrite the Constitution?”
The case stems from the Court’s ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., where the Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that indefinite inaction by Governors on Bills was impermissible, making such inaction subject to judicial review. While Article 200 of the Constitution does not prescribe a time limit, the Court had ruled that Governors must act “within a reasonable time.” Similarly, the Court directed that Presidential assent under Article 201 should ordinarily be granted within three months, with reasons recorded for any delay.
AG Venkataramani argued that by imposing timelines, the Apex Court ventured into the legislative domain and treated the President as an “ordinary statutory authority.” He contended that the Court’s reliance on Article 142 to create new procedural mandates “cannot be used to create a new edifice ignoring constitutional statutes.” He further questioned whether the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 allowed the Court to pronounce on queries such as whether Article 361 operates as an absolute bar to judicial review of gubernatorial actions. “You cannot ask this in advisory jurisdiction… you are asking us an opinion and opinion can be polyvocal,” Justice Narasimha responded.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, stressed that “all problems may not have a solution in the court of law.” He urged the Bench to consider the broader constitutional scheme under Articles 74, 111, 155, 163, 200 and 201, while noting that the Constituent Assembly had deliberately deleted an earlier proposal to prescribe timelines for assent. “It was deleted for good reasons since the power was entrusted upon the highest constitutional functionary,” he said.
Justice P.S. Narasimha observed that the Tamil Nadu case involved an “egregious situation” where Bills had been pending before the Governor for an unreasonably long time, compelling judicial intervention. “See the egregious situation where it had come to… it was to remedy that situation that the court stepped in,” he observed.
CJI Gavai also commented on the scope of Article 143 references, noting, “So you are saying first matter should be seen as to whether there is substantial constitutional questions or not. If that is the case then Mondays and Fridays… the volumes of cases which come to us…”
The Bench will continue hearing arguments tomorrow, with the Presidential Reference raising fourteen questions that go to the heart of the relationship between constitutional functionaries, legislative authority, and judicial oversight.
Picture Source :
