Prez reference: SC reserves verdict on question over fixing timeline for guvs' nod to clear bills
New Delhi (PTI): 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.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ordinance issued to increase number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38
New Delhi (PTI): The government has promulgated an ordinance to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from the present 34 judges to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
The law ministry notified the ordinance on Saturday, which amended the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of the top court.
So far, the sanctioned strength of the top court was 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Now, the number of judges has been increased by four, taking the sanctioned strength to 38.
The top court will now have 37 judges, other than the CJI.
With the apex court having two vacancies at present, and the ordinance coming into force immediately, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend six names for appointment as judges in the top court.
A bill will be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to convert the ordinance – an executive order – into a law passed by Parliament.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a draft bill on May 5 to increase the number of apex court judges.
The strength of the Supreme Court was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the CJI) in 2019.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, as originally enacted in 1956, put the maximum number of judges (excluding the CJI) at 10.
This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by another amendment to the law.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, augmented the strength of judges from 17 to 25, excluding the CJI.
A fresh amendment in 2009 further increased the strength from 25 to 30.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution lists the qualifications required to become a Supreme Court judge.
An Indian citizen who has either served as a high court judge for at least five years, or as an advocate for 10 years, or is a distinguished jurist, can be appointed to the top court.
The strength of the Supreme Court is increased based on the recommendations of the CJI, who writes to the Union law minister. After consulting the finance ministry, the Department of Justice under the law ministry moves the Cabinet with a draft bill.
