Today, On 19th August, In the Presidential Reference case on assent to bills, Attorney General R. Venkataramani questioned judicial overreach, asking, “Can Supreme Court say let me take pen and paper and rewrite the Constitution?” as he strongly criticised the court’s stance.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani raised concerns on Tuesday regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling from April, which established deadlines for Governors and the President to provide assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
He questioned whether the Court has the authority to effectively “rewrite the Constitution.”
Venkataramani was presenting arguments before the Constitution Bench, which included Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar.
This hearing was part of a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution.
Venkataramani posed,
“Can the court go to the extent where it says let me take pen and paper and rewrite the constitution?”
In response, the Court explained that the April ruling may have been prompted by the prolonged delays in the Tamil Nadu case, where bills were left pending before the Governor for an extended period.
Justice Narasimha remarked,
“See the egregious situation where it had come to… it was to remedy that situation that the court stepped in… the bills were pending for so long.”
The Presidential reference challenges the Supreme Court’s April decision, which mandated timelines for the President and the Governor to act on bills. It also stated that the Governor’s inaction under Article 200 (concerning the Governor’s powers regarding assent to bills passed by the State Legislature) is subject to judicial review.
Earlier, In the case of The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that the Governor must act within a reasonable timeframe, asserting that constitutional silence should not be used to obstruct the democratic process. While Article 200 does not define a specific time limit, the Court maintained that it should not permit indefinite delays by the Governor in responding to bills.
Regarding the President’s authority under Article 201, the Court concluded that her decision-making is not immune to judicial scrutiny and should occur within three months. Any delays beyond this timeframe must be justified and communicated to the relevant State.
Following this ruling, the President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, expressing concerns about the Court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 201.
Among these questions are whether the Supreme Court can establish procedural mechanisms in areas where the Constitution is silent, and whether enforcing time limits encroaches upon the discretionary powers granted to the President and Governors.
AG Venkataramani today contended that the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu case overstepped into legislative territory. He cited Article 143(3) of the Constitution, which mandates that a Supreme Court bench determine whether the issue at hand involves significant constitutional interpretation and if it should be escalated to a five-judge bench.
In response, CJI Gavai remarked that the Court would have to extend its sessions until midnight to address such cases.
The CJI noted,
“So you are saying first matter should be seen as to whether there are substantial constitutional questions or not. If that is the case then Mondays and Fridays… the volumes of cases which come to us…”
Justice Narasimha echoed a similar concern.
He stated,
“The question 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. You cannot ask this in advisory jurisdiction… you are asking us an opinion and opinion can be polyvocal,”
Venkataramani further argued that the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu case regarded the President as merely an “ordinary statutory authority,” thus encroaching on the domain of regulatory authority. He challenged the Court’s perspective that when a Governor reserves a State bill for the President’s consideration, the latter should seek the Court’s advisory opinion.
He added that Article 142 cannot be invoked to create new frameworks that disregard constitutional statutes.
Regarding the delays by the TN Governor in clearing bills, Venkataramani stated he would not delve into the case’s specifics, emphasizing that the central question was whether the Court should have ventured into this domain at all.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, argued that not all issues can be resolved through legal means. He urged the Court to examine Articles 111 (assent to bills by Parliament), 74 (Council of Ministers advising the President), 155 (appointment of the Governor), 163 (Council of Ministers advising the Governor), and Articles 200-201 (assent to State legislature bills) to address the reference.
The Solicitor General traced the historical roots of Article 111, explaining how the power of assent developed from the colonial era into the framework of the Indian Republic.
He highlighted that the President of India and the Governors hold a unique constitutional position, as they take an oath not only to uphold but also to defend the Constitution, setting them apart as distinct constitutional functionaries with special responsibilities in the legislative process.
Mehta pointed out that while a timeline for bill assent was previously established, it was intentionally removed by the constituent assembly.
He remarked,
“It was deleted for good reasons since the power was entrusted upon the highest constitutional functionary,”
Mehta will continue his arguments on Wednesday.
The Presidential Reference followed the April 8 Supreme Court ruling which held that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills passed by State legislatures. Though Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Court said Governors must act within a reasonable time and cannot stall the democratic process.
The Court also held that under Article 201, the President must decide on Bills within three months. If delayed, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.
President Murmu later sent 14 questions to the Court, asking whether the judiciary could impose such deadlines and whether the concept of “deemed assent” was constitutionally valid.
While the Centre backs the Reference, arguing that Governors’ powers cannot be curtailed by judicial timelines, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have asked the Court to dismiss it as not maintainable.
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India | SPL. REF. No. 1/2025 XVII-A
Read Attachment