NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that constitutional courts cannot prescribe timelines for the President or governors while they decide on bills passed by state legislatures. Calling such directions unconstitutional, the court delivered its opinion on a presidential reference that sought clarity on whether courts could mandate time-bound action under Articles 200 and 201.A constitution bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar struck down earlier directions issued by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu case, which had fixed deadlines for governors when dealing with bills.The bench also held that courts cannot grant deemed assent to bills pending before a governor. It noted that the two-judge bench’s use of Article 142 to grant deemed assent to 10 Tamil Nadu bills was beyond its authority. The court said it cannot assume or override the constitutional powers vested in governors and the President.At the same time, the bench clarified that governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills. It said that within India’s cooperative federal structure, governors must engage in dialogue with state legislatures to resolve concerns and should not adopt an obstructionist approach.
What Supreme Court said: Key points
- SC said while governor can’t be made personally liable for his decisions, the constitutional court can scrutinise his decisions. However, it said no time limit can be slapped on the Governor by the court except for telling him to take a decision in a reasonable period.
- SC can ask a governor to exercise his functions as per Article 200/201 on a Bill but can’t ask him to grant assent to it, the 5-J bench said, adding that SC can only seek limited accountability from the Governor.
- In an important clarification, SC said while constitutional courts cannot question governors’ actions, it can in limited circumstances take up for scrutiny prolonged inaction on governors’ part to frustrate objectives of a Bill and determine whether the delay was deliberate.
- A five-judge bench says Governor has the discretion either to return the Bill with comments to the House or reserve it for President’s consideration. This discretion of the Governor cannot be whittled down, said the bench led by CJI B R Gavai.
- However, the SC bluntly said that constitutional courts cannot impose timelines on President and Governor for taking a decision on the Bills. Such a direction, as was issued by a 2-J bench in Tamil Nadu case, is unconstitutional.
- SC also said constitutional courts can’t grant deemed assent to Bills pending before a governor, as was done by a 2-J bench using Art 142 powers to grant deemed assent to 10 Tamil Nadu Bills. The 5-J bench said SC cannot unconstitutionally take over powers of guvs and President.
- The 5-J bench also negated a 2-J bench’s view that President should seek opinion of the SC on constitutionality of a Bill reserved for her consideration by the Governor. SC said the President cannot be asked to seek SC’s opinion.
- Prez Reference: SC says Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by state Assemblies. It says in India’s cooperative federalism, Governors must adopt dialogue process to iron out differences with House over a Bill and not adopt an obstructionist approach.
The presidential reference, submitted in May by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1), sought clarity on whether courts could prescribe time limits for decisions of the President and governors. It followed the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling on the Tamil Nadu governor’s handling of several bills passed by the state government.In the five-page reference, the President posed 14 questions on the constitutional processes under Articles 200 and 201. According to Live Law, these questions examined whether governors are bound by ministerial advice, whether their decisions are subject to judicial review, and whether courts can impose deadlines in the absence of constitutional timelines. Other questions focused on whether the President must seek the Supreme Court’s opinion when a bill is reserved for assent, whether decisions are justiciable before a bill becomes law, and whether Article 142 allows courts to substitute constitutional functions.The ruling is expected to shape Centre-state relations, particularly as several state governments have accused governors of delaying assent to important legislation.