In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by clause (1) of Article 143 of the Constitution of India, Droupadi Murmu, President of India has referred the following questions to the Supreme Court of India for consideration and to report its opinion thereon, namely:-
1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
2. Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?
9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?
10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon'ble Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?
13. Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?
14. Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?
Under Article 143(1), the President can refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion, which has constitutional significance.
It is noteworthy that the President has sought Court's opinion in compliance with Supreme Court's decision dated April 8, 2025 in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) on judicial review of the exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 and the exercise of power by the President under Article 201, the President has sought the opinion of the Court.
The Court had observed:"434 (XX)Whenever, in exercise of the powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, a bill is reserved for the consideration of the President on grounds of patent unconstitutionality that are of such a nature so as to cause peril to the principles of representative democracy, the President, must be guided by the fact that it is the constitutional courts which have been entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating upon the questions of constitutionality and legality of an executive or legislative action. Therefore, as a measure of prudence, the President ought to make a reference to this Court in exercise of his powers under Article 143 of the Constitution" at page no. 399-400.
The Court answered the questions of the law saying, "In discharge of his functions under Article 200, the Governor has three options to choose from when a bill passed by the State legislature is presented to him –i. First, to assent; ii.Secondly, to withhold assent; or iii. Thirdly, to reserve the bill for the consideration of the President."
In conclusion, the judgement reads: "The first proviso to Article 200 should be read in conjunction with the option of withholding of assent provided in the substantive part of Article 200. It is not an independent course of action and has to be mandatorily initiated by the Governor in cases where the option of withholding of assent is to be exercised." It clarified that the decision of the Court in State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab reported in (2024) 1SCC 384) lays down the correct position of law in this regard.
The judgement observed that President and Governor do not hold the power to exercise ‘absolute veto’ on any bill, asserted Supreme Court's division bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in it's 414 page long judgement on April 8, 2025. It reads:"We direct the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts and the Principal Secretaries to the Governors of all States." It made it crystal clear that when Governor of any State reserves a bill for the consideration contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the relevant High Court or the Supreme Court."
No comments:
Post a Comment