<p class="bodytext">The Presidential reference to the Supreme Court on the court’s April verdict, fixing timelines for state Governors and the President to clear state bills, prima facie shows that the Central government wants some matters in the verdict clarified. The 14 questions relate to the powers of the Governor, the time lines given by the court for the Governor and the President to assent to bills, and the President’s own role and powers. The court had held that Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s act of withholding assent to 10 bills indefinitely was wrong and illegal. The court declared the bills as having been assented to. The Central government has not stated its position on the judgment but the reference shows that it does not agree with it. The reference raises procedural, legal and substantial issues, but it is clear that the Centre’s questions are basically political. The judgment makes it difficult for Governors to play politics by withholding assent to bills in Opposition-ruled states, and it even covers the President in its scope. The questions reflect the politics of this tussle.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court will consider the President’s questions on merit. The judgment is considered to have strengthened the federal structure by limiting the scope for arbitrariness in the Governors’ decisions. The court’s declaration that Governors had no veto power underlined the power of elected governments over the position of the Governors. The court essentially will have to consider whether a time line could be laid down for the Governor’s decision when the Constitution does not prescribe it. It will also examine whether the judgment dilutes the President’s powers or questions her position. Other related issues will also be looked into.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It may be noted that the government did not seek a review of the verdict. Instead, it has gone in for a Presidential reference. Reviews are made by the same bench, which often sticks to its judgment. The court is not bound to respond to the reference. On an earlier occasion, it had declined to give its opinion when asked about the Babri Masjid dispute. The court’s opinion is not binding on the government or parliament. It is also important to note that whatever may be the court’s opinion on the questions raised by the President, it will not affect the judgment, which will continue to be in force. That makes the purpose of the reference vague, and strengthens the view that it is political. It has also been pointed out that most questions in the reference have been answered in the April judgment or in other judgments of the court.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The Presidential reference to the Supreme Court on the court’s April verdict, fixing timelines for state Governors and the President to clear state bills, prima facie shows that the Central government wants some matters in the verdict clarified. The 14 questions relate to the powers of the Governor, the time lines given by the court for the Governor and the President to assent to bills, and the President’s own role and powers. The court had held that Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s act of withholding assent to 10 bills indefinitely was wrong and illegal. The court declared the bills as having been assented to. The Central government has not stated its position on the judgment but the reference shows that it does not agree with it. The reference raises procedural, legal and substantial issues, but it is clear that the Centre’s questions are basically political. The judgment makes it difficult for Governors to play politics by withholding assent to bills in Opposition-ruled states, and it even covers the President in its scope. The questions reflect the politics of this tussle.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court will consider the President’s questions on merit. The judgment is considered to have strengthened the federal structure by limiting the scope for arbitrariness in the Governors’ decisions. The court’s declaration that Governors had no veto power underlined the power of elected governments over the position of the Governors. The court essentially will have to consider whether a time line could be laid down for the Governor’s decision when the Constitution does not prescribe it. It will also examine whether the judgment dilutes the President’s powers or questions her position. Other related issues will also be looked into.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It may be noted that the government did not seek a review of the verdict. Instead, it has gone in for a Presidential reference. Reviews are made by the same bench, which often sticks to its judgment. The court is not bound to respond to the reference. On an earlier occasion, it had declined to give its opinion when asked about the Babri Masjid dispute. The court’s opinion is not binding on the government or parliament. It is also important to note that whatever may be the court’s opinion on the questions raised by the President, it will not affect the judgment, which will continue to be in force. That makes the purpose of the reference vague, and strengthens the view that it is political. It has also been pointed out that most questions in the reference have been answered in the April judgment or in other judgments of the court.</p>
