“Will Only Interpret Provisions Of Constitution In President Reference, Not Individual Cases”: SC

Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said its role in the Presidential reference concerning the powers of governors and the President over state bills is limited to interpreting the Constitution, not examining state-specific disputes.

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, is hearing the matter that questions whether courts can fix timelines for constitutional authorities to act on bills passed by state legislatures.

CJI To Centre: “No State-Specific Debate”

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought permission to file a reply if opposing parties relied on examples from states such as Andhra Pradesh. He argued, “Since we need to show how the Constitution was taken on a joyride since its inception… let us see if we want to travel down that dirty path.”

Chief Justice Gavai immediately clarified: “We are not going into individual instances whether it’s Andhra Pradesh or Telangana or Karnataka but we will only interpret the provisions of the Constitution. Nothing else.”

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu and Kerala, outlined situations where bills may lapse. He said if a governor returns a bill under Article 200 and the assembly decides not to reconsider or change its policy, the bill “naturally falls through.”

Asked what would happen if a governor simply withholds a bill, Singhvi referred to earlier rulings which held that such a bill would lapse unless the first proviso to Article 200 was applied. The proviso requires the governor to return the bill to the assembly for reconsideration and, once re-passed, assent can’t be withheld.

Court’s Concern

On August 28, the bench had remarked that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 would serve no purpose if governors were allowed to keep bills pending “for eternity.” Earlier, it questioned whether a governor’s power to withhold assent could even extend to money bills, potentially stalling essential legislative work.

BJP-ruled states have defended the autonomy of governors and the President, contending that “assent to a law cannot be given by court” and warning that the judiciary should not act as a solution to every political impasse.

Background

In May, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether it can set binding timelines for the President and governors in deciding the fate of bills.