New Delhi | The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict after hearing arguments for 10 days on the presidential reference, which asked if a constitutional court can impose timelines for governors and President to assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
A Constitution bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, which commenced the hearing on August 19 on the reference, reserved the verdict.
With the conclusion of the country's topmost law officer, Attorney General R Venkataramani's arguments, the matter was reserved for verdict by the bench.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, concluded his arguments, contesting the submissions of the opposition-ruled Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh which opposed the reference.
Senior advocates K K Venugopal and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments, respectively, had opposed the presidential reference and said the issues raised by President were covered by a series of apex court judgments, including the April 8 verdict.
The decision of President came after the April 8 verdict of the apex court which set timelines for governors in assenting to bills passed by the state government.
The verdict was passed in a protracted battle between the Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and the state government over withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature.
The top court while hearing the reference asked what was wrong if President herself sought views through a reference on whether fixed timelines could be imposed on governors and her for acting on bills passed by state legislatures.
"When the President herself is seeking reference then what is the problem? Are you really serious about contesting this?" the bench asked while beginning a crucial hearing on the reference.
"It is very clear that we are sitting in an advisory jurisdiction," the CJI noted.
During the 10 days of hearing, the apex court heard a battery of senior lawyers including the attorney general, the solicitor general besides Venugopal, Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Arvind Datar, Gopal Subramanian, Maninder Singh, N K Kaul, Anand Sharma, P Wilson and Gopal Sankaranarayanan primarily on the powers of governors especially under Article 200 of the Constitution.
The BJP-ruled states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Goa and Chhattisgarh defended the functional autonomy of governors and President in assenting to bills passed by the state assembly.
Article 200 governs powers of Governor regarding bills passed by the state legislature, allowing them to either assent to the bill, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration or reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies.
In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.