THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA R. Venkataramani on Tuesday while questioning the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025, judgment laying down the timelines for the Governor to give assent to the Bills passed by the State legislatures, asked whether the Court could rewrite the provisions of the Constitution – particularly Articles 200 and 201 - through judicial intervention.
Opening the arguments before a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, Attorney General asked, “Can the Court go to the extent where it says let me take pen and paper and rewrite the Constitution?”
He argued that in the case of the Tamil Nadu Governor, the top Court entered into the legislative domain and essentially rewrote Articles 200 and 201 by reading into them something which was not envisaged while the framing of the two provisions. Venkataramani argued that the issue dealt in the April 8 judgment should have been referred to a larger five-judge bench but this was not considered. He also pointed out that he had urged the two-judge bench to refer the issue to a larger bench.
However, the bench responded saying that the previous bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had intervened and laid down the timelines only because the bills passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly and presented to the Governor for his assent were pending with him for a long time without any action. Justice Narasimha observed, “See the egregious situation where it had come to.. it was to remedy that situation that the court stepped in.. the bills were pending for so long.”
In the morning session of the hearing which commenced, senior advocates K.K. Venugopal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P. Wilson questioned the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. They argued that the Presidential Reference was a camouflaged appeal against the top Court’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
