Presidential Remarks on Governor Deadline Timelines: Real-Time Updates from the Supreme Court

Presidential Remarks on Governor Deadline Timelines: Real-Time Updates from the Supreme Court - Day 2 Live Coverage

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a Presidential reference case on the timelines and procedures for the President and State Governors when considering Bills passed by State legislatures. The case was initiated by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution.

The case challenges the top court's April ruling which prescribed timelines for the President and the Governor to decide on Bills and held that the Governor's inaction was subject to judicial review. The Presidential reference argues that neither Article 200 nor 201 contains any express provision empowering the Court to prescribe deadlines.

The Solicitor General (SG), representing the President, argues that the interpretation of the term "withhold" in Article 200 should not be static and should take into account the ground realities. The SG suggests that the Governor has the option to withhold a bill permanently, and if he withholds and sends it to the assembly, the Governor can send it to the President again if the assembly reiterates the provision.

The SG also argues that the concept of "deemed assent" if the President or Governor failed to act on a Bill within a prescribed time is contrary to the constitutional framework. This concept was introduced by the Supreme Court's April ruling.

The central government, led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, has supported the President's stance, arguing that the power of Governors and the President to act on Bills is a "high prerogative" function which cannot be bound by judicial timelines.

Both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have opposed the reference as not maintainable. The hearing of the matter featured discussions on the discretionary powers of Governors and the constitutional precursors to Article 200. The SG argues that the interpretation of Article 200 should be based on direct judgments and not on something of the Government of India Act.

The SG also emphasised that the post of the President and Governor are not of postmen and require the use of wisdom. Judicial review becomes important in the Governor's case, but it should not be counterproductive to the powers of the Governor and the legislative process.

The Supreme Court comprises a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai. The President's questions include whether the Supreme Court can effectively legislate a procedure where the Constitution is silent, and whether timelines for assent encroach upon the discretionary domain of constitutional functionaries.

The case was triggered by the Supreme Court's April ruling in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the Governor. The hearing is ongoing, and a decision is expected in due course.