SC on Prez reference: Court bound to address constitutional questions

The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored that judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and courts cannot avoid ruling on constitutional questions merely because the issue carries political overtones.

The observation came during the hearing of a Presidential reference on whether the judiciary can prescribe timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai, and also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, heard the matter on its sixth day.

Tamil Nadu’s counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, pointed out that the Centre had argued governors’ and the President’s actions are immune from judicial review, and that court interference would upset the constitutional balance. “It emphases that judicial review is part of the basic structure… the controversy may be political in character but so long it raises a constitutional question, the court can't decline to answer it,” the bench remarked, referring to the landmark Minerva Mills ruling.

The bench clarified its focus was limited to constitutional interpretation, saying, “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.”

Singhvi explained situations where bills “fall through.” He noted that if a bill returned by the Governor under Article 200 is not reconsidered or resent by the assembly, “the bill falls through unless the first proviso in Article 200 is followed.” He also warned against excessive delays in gubernatorial action, saying such inaction could amount to a “pocket veto.”

“Case-to-case interventions will not solve the problem,” Singhvi argued, emphasising that Articles 200 and 201 themselves “necessitate a general timeline.” He added that limiting relief to individual writs under Articles 226 or 32 would “defeat the legislative process itself,” since delays of “three to five years” render laws ineffective.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, objected to Singhvi citing state-specific examples like Andhra Pradesh. “If they are going to rely on such cases, we will have to file a reply. Since Independence, the Constitution has been taken on a joyride in some states. If we travel down that dirty path, we will have to place the full record before this court,” he warned.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for West Bengal, contended that withholding assent by governors undermines democracy. “Withholding assent thwarts the will of the people,” he said, adding, “For the first time in history, this court would be asked to hold that the will of the people need not be implemented because the Governor withholds assent, an unacceptable proposition.”

He stressed that neither governors nor the President hold any independent legislative authority. “Where in the Constitution is there a provision that allows the Governor to thwart the legislature?” Sibal asked. Treating assent as a discretionary power, he argued, would amount to a “breakdown of constitutional machinery.”

“No principle of constitutional law allows one organ to become an impediment to another. Discretion is a concept alien to Article 200. What the Governor performs is a constitutional duty, not a free-willed choice,” he said. Even if some discretion is assumed, Sibal added, it must remain “within constitutional contours and not as an absolute power.”

The hearing will continue on Wednesday. In May, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether it could mandate timelines for the President’s exercise of discretion when considering bills passed by state assemblies.
(With PTI Inputs)