SC & Presidential reference, Pg 16.

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court has reserved its opinion on the Presidential reference regarding the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to Bills.
• The reference was made following the SC's April ruling, which criticized the Tamil Nadu Governor's delay in assenting to 10 Bills as unconstitutional.
• Article 143(1) of the Constitution empowers the President to seek the SC’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
• The SC’s opinion will test the limits of judicial review of executive action and bring to focus the challenges of a polyvocal court.

Detailed Insights:

• The Presidential reference questions whether the SC could have set timelines for the President and Governors, creating a point of contention between the executive and the judiciary.
• States argued that the reference should be rejected as it seeks to relitigate the issue, while the Solicitor General maintained that Article 143 could clarify constitutional doubts, even with past rulings.
• States argued that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163, while the Centre argued that the Governor has a distinct constitutional role beyond being a "postman".
• The Centre argued against the SC’s April ruling setting timelines for Governors, stating it would judicially amend the Constitution, while states argued that "as soon as possible" in Article 200 implies immediacy.
• The Centre opposed states filing writ petitions under Article 32, arguing it is meant for fundamental rights, while states contended that Governors are a vital link between the union and the state.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 143: Empowers the President to consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance.
• Article 163: States that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the state's Council of Ministers.
• Article 200: Deals with the assent to Bills by the Governor.
• Article 32: Grants the right to individuals to move the Supreme Court seeking remedies for violation of fundamental rights.