Presidential Reference on Timelines for Assent to Bills
A five-member constitution bench of the Supreme Court is reviewing a presidential reference regarding the authority of the court to establish timelines and procedures for the President and state governors to grant assent to bills.
Key Observations and Arguments
- Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai's Observation:
- CJI Gavai emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that while judicial activism is necessary, it should not become judicial adventurism.
-
- The court, being the custodian of the Constitution, should not remain passive if a democracy wing fails to fulfill its duties.
- April Judgment and Division Bench:
- The bench noted that the April judgment, which set timelines for governors to assent to bills, is "intra party and cannot be binding on the Constitution".
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's Argument:
- The constitution bench can declare the division bench's April judgment incorrect.
-
- Issuing a mandamus regarding the legislative discretionary function of a governor would breach the separation of powers theory.
Court's Stance and Presidential Reference
- The Supreme Court will not assess the correctness of the April judgment but will only respond to questions raised by the presidential reference.
- President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court's opinion, raising 14 questions about the judicial imposition of deadlines for assent to bills.
Article 143(1) of the Constitution
- This article empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on legal and public importance matters.
