Last Updated:
The Supreme Court said it will only interpret the Constitution on whether it can impose timelines for governors and the President to deal with Bills passed by state assemblies
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai said the hearing will resume on September 3. (Image: PTI/File)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said instances of delay in giving assent to Bills did not justify the imposition of a fixed timeline for the governors and President.
On the sixth day of the hearing on the Presidential reference, the Supreme Court observed that it will only interpret the Constitution on whether it can impose timelines for governors and the President to deal with Bills passed by state assemblies.
Recommended Stories
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai — comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar — asked: “The question is whether a general timeline (for governors and President) can be given under Article 142 of the Constitution.”
Article 142 of the Constitution grants the SC the extraordinary power to pass any order necessary to achieve complete justice in any case before it, even if it involves overriding or filling gaps in existing laws.
‘CASE-TO-CASE INTERVENTIONS WON’T SOLVE PROBLEM’
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, objected to the reliance on state-specific examples, including Andhra Pradesh.
“If they are going to rely on such cases, we will have to file a reply. Since Independence, the Constitution has been taken on a joyride in some states. If we travel down that dirty path, we will have to place the full record before this court,” Mehta said.
Chief Justice Gavai steered the debate back to constitutional issues and said: “We are not going into individual instances whether it’s Andhra Pradesh or Telangana or Karnataka but we will only interpret the provisions of the Constitution. Nothing else.”
Tamil Nadu’s counsel and senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi summarised what “falling through” of bills means. He said a bill “falls through”, in one instance when the state assembly that has been asked by governor to reconsider it after it is returned in exercise of powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, “may not want to send it back, may not want to pass it, may change its policy”.
The CJI asked Singhvi what would happen if the governor decides to withhold the bill and does not send it back to the assembly. To this, Singhvi said: “If that happens, then all this sending back to the assembly does not happen. Earlier verdicts said, the bill falls through unless the first proviso in Article 200 is followed (which requires the bill to be sent back to the assembly).”
Stressing on the dangers of inordinate delays by governors in granting assent or referring bills, he outlined the need for a constitutional “timeline” framework. “Case-to-case interventions will not solve the problem,” he argued, stressing articles 200 and 201 “necessitate a general timeline”.
He said without structured limits, governors could effectively exercise a “pocket veto”, stalling legislation indefinitely. Limiting remedies to individual writ petitions under articles 226 or 32 will render the problem systemic and “a delay of three to five years defeats the legislative process itself”, he said. The constitutional design favoured workable timelines and the court would be “defeating the whole exercise if relief is limited to individual disputes”, he added.
‘WITHHOLDING ASSENT THWARTS WILL OF THE PEOPLE’
Appearing for West Bengal, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said “withholding assent thwarts the will of the people”.
“For the first time in history, this court would be asked to hold that the will of the people needs not be implemented because governor withholds assent, an unacceptable proposition,” Sibal said.
He said neither governors nor President has any independent legislative power. “Where in the Constitution is there a provision that allows the Governor to thwart the legislature?” he asked.
The senior lawyer said treating withholding of assent as a discretionary power of governor would amount to a “breakdown of constitutional machinery” that violates the collaborative spirit of governance.
“No principle of constitutional law allows one organ to become an impediment to another. Discretion is a concept alien to Article 200. What the governor performs is a constitutional duty, not a free-willed choice,” he said, adding that even if some discretion exists, it must be exercised within constitutional contours and not as an “absolute power”.
The hearing will resume on Wednesday (September 3). In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
(With PTI inputs)
About the Author
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d…Read More
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d… Read More
Loading comments…
Read More
