Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that Articles 200 and 201, which outline the powers of the Governor and President regarding assent to Bills, are integral to the Constitutionâs basic structure. He argued that the Tamil Nadu judgment, which imposes timelines for these approvals, undermines their authority to reject Bills that do not comply with constitutional standards.
Venkataramani addressed a five-judge bench, which began deliberations on a reference made by President Draupadi Murmu regarding the possibility of imposing timelines on the actions of the President and Governors. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai presided over the bench, which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar.
He emphasized that viewing the basic structure solely through a democratic lens limited to the legislature is inadequate. âArticles 200 and 201 are part of the basic structure, wherein the President and the Governor play crucial roles to ensure constitutional compliance. They should have the authority to say âstopâ if a Bill fails to adhere to these standards,â Venkataramani stated.
In April, a two-judge bench had set a deadline for Governors to act on pending Bills, marking the first instance of the President being required to decide on Bills reserved for the Governorâs consideration within three months of receiving such references. In May, President Murmu submitted 14 significant questions to the Supreme Court concerning this ruling.
Responding to preliminary objections raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu regarding the referenceâs maintainability, Chief Justice Gavai clarified, âWe will only provide a legal view, not revisit the Tamil Nadu caseâs decision.â Justice Surya Kant added, âWe operate within an advisory jurisdiction and are not in an appellate role. Under Article 143, while the court can express that a judgment does not represent the correct law, it cannot overrule that judgment.â
