Prez reference: Interpretation, working of constitutional text truly 'swadeshi', says SC

New Delhi, Nov 20 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday said while its constitutional text may have been inspired by a comparative outlook, its interpretation and working is truly "swadeshi".

In its unanimous opinion on the Presidential Reference, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said unlike the English experience of an unwritten Constitution, India has a written text.

It noted that the American experience is vastly different due to the strict separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, necessitating the Presidential Veto.

"The point that is being made is this -- the Indian Constitution is not just transformative in its adoption, it has been and continues to be transformative in its practice and interpretation, shedding its colonial vestiges for a vibrant and evolving swadeshi foundation," the bench said.

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, noted that copious written submissions and extensive arguments were advanced by the counsel to underscore the functioning of the Westminster parliamentary model and its workings in the United Kingdom.

It said arguments were also advanced on the presidential system prevalent in the United States of America, and the strict separation of powers practised there.

"This court believes that our constitutional truth does not lie in either of these extremes but is grounded in the way we have successfully, and if we may add, proudly, worked our Constitution over three quarters of a century," the bench said.

It further said, "While our constitutional text may have been inspired by comparative outlook, its interpretation and working, we believe is truly swadeshi." The bench said the English constitutional law did not have to grapple with vital questions of federalism and an inherently diverse country.

"It did not have to deal with distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States, questions of shared natural resources, inter-State trade, commerce and taxation, Union control over foreign relations and the not so infrequent, yet healthy contestations of constitutional spaces between the Union and States," it noted.

The bench said Indian constitutionalism on the other hand has evolved over the years to a parliamentary model where legislative agenda, business and enactment is overwhelmingly executed at the behest of the executive.

It said the introduction of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution has left very little, if any, for legislation without the support of the government in power.

In a major verdict, the top court held that no timelines can be imposed on governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state assemblies, and governors do not have "unfettered" powers to sit on them for perpetuity.

The apex court said governors have only three options -- either to grant assent, or refer the bills to the president or withhold assent and send them back to the assemblies for reconsideration under Article 200.

The bench held that imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to the "elasticity that the Constitution" so carefully preserves for constitutional authorities. PTI ABA MNL SJK ABA KSS KSS