President asks SC if it can fix timeline...

Nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such a hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.

- 

Continued from Page 1

In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor, President under Article 200 and 201 in dealing with Bills passed by the state legislature.

"Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?" the President has sought to know.

Article 200 deals with situations with regard to passage of Bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on grant of assent, or withholding of assent or sending the Bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the Bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor.

The Centre has resorted to the presidential reference instead of seeking a review of the verdict, which has evoked sharp reactions in the political spectrum.

The rules prescribe for the review petitions to be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench.

The apex court, however, may choose to refuse to answer any or all of the questions raised in the reference.