A five-judge constitution bench on Tuesday said it would examine the maintainability of the “presidential reference” made to it in the wake of the view of Kerala and Tamil Nadu that there was no need to interfere with the Supreme Court judgment fixing timelines for the President and the governors on clearance of bills passed by the Assemblies.

“We will initially hear the parties (Kerala and Tamil Nadu) on preliminary objections for an hour. After that, we will start hearing the attorney general and Union of India supporting the reference on 19, 20, 21, 26 of August,” Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai observed.

The bench, which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, would again conduct hearings on August 28, September 2, 3 and 9.

The directions were passed after former attorney-general K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P. Wilson, representing Tamil Nadu, submitted that the two states had filed their objections to the maintainability of the reference order made by President Droupadi Murmu.

Sibal said that while Kerala and Tamil Nadu would require two days each, the Union government would need four days to advance their arguments, and a definite timeline should be fixed for the hearings.

Venugopal told the bench that there was no need to answer the presidential reference as the April 8 judgment passed by the apex court had already answered 11 of the 14 questions posed by the President in her reference order.

He said the Centre’s move to seek the reference through the President was nothing but a “misuse of Article 143 of the Constitution”.

On July 22, a five-judge constitution bench had issued notices to the Centre and the states on President Murmu’s reference under Article 143 of the Constitution seeking clarifications as to whether the top court could fix timelines for the President and the governors on the question of clearing bills passed by state legislatures.

The court had requested attorney-general R. Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter, while solicitor-general Tushar Mehta said he would be representing the Union government.

Article 143 vests the President with the power to consult the Supreme Court by way of a reference on any issue of substantial constitutional importance. When so referred, a five-judge constitution bench or a higher quorum may assemble and answer the questions raised by the President.

Murmu had made the reference in the wake of an April 8 judgment passed by the
Supreme Court that neither the President nor the governors had any “pocket veto power” to indefinitely withhold bills passed by a state legislature, as it prescribed timelines of three months and one month for the two constitutional authorities.