Timelines can't be fixed for governors to give assent to bills, says SC

A five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that courts cannot prescribe fixed timelines for governors or the President to decide on bills, but emphasised that governors cannot indefinitely delay a bill

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that timelines cannot be fixed for governors to give assent to bills passed by state assemblies, LiveLaw reported.

 

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, pronounced its verdict on the presidential reference on fixing timelines for governors and the President to act on bills.

 

The verdict comes in response to President Droupadi Murmu's questions to the apex court after a two-judge bench's verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case that effectively set a deadline for the President and governors to clear bills passed by the legislature.

 

 

The bench heard the matter for 10 days and reserved its verdict on September 11.

 

Delivering its verdict, the five-judge bench ruled that the concept of courts declaring “deemed assent” to bills when deadlines are missed runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and undermines the principle of separation of powers. It observed that such a move would effectively amount to the judiciary taking over functions that are constitutionally assigned to the governor.

 

What did the court say about delays by governors?

 

The apex court also observed that the governors cannot indefinitely sit over bills and should decide in a time-bound manner. It further said that if there is a prolonged or unexplained delay at the governor's end, which stalls the legislative process, the Court may step in using its limited power of judicial review to require the Governor to decide within a specified timeframe, without commenting on the substance of the bill itself.

 

What options does a Governor have under Article 200?

 

The court observed that once a bill is presented, under Article 200 of the Constitution, a governor has three options. They can either give assent, withhold, or reserve it for the President. It clarified that withholding an assent is inseparable from the requirement under the first proviso to Article 200, which mandates that the bill be sent back to the Assembly.

 

The proviso is not an additional, fourth option but a qualification to the power of withholding assent. Therefore, if the governor decides not to grant assent, the bill must be returned to the House. Allowing the governor to withhold assent without sending the bill back would undermine the federal structure.

 

The court also dismissed the Union government’s contention that the Governor can merely withhold a bill without returning it to the legislature.

 

How did the Tamil Nadu case shape the dispute?

 

The case originated after a prolonged standoff between the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government in Tamil Nadu and Governor RN Ravi. Between November 2020 and April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed 13 bills, of which the governor either withheld assent or returned 10 of them without an explanation.

 

Even after the legislature passed those bills again without significant changes, Governor Ravi declined to sign them and instead sent them to the President for consideration, a move the Supreme Court later found to be unconstitutional, The New Indian Express reported.

 

What concerns did the Supreme Court raise about unchecked delays?

 

While hearing the case, the court clarified many times that it would not be sitting in appeal over the Tamil Nadu Governor's judgment and that it would only answer the constitutional questions. States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab raised objections to the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the questions were already answered in the RN Ravi judgment.

 

The top court questioned whether the governors can indefinitely withhold bills. If the governors can withhold bills without returning them to the Assembly, it will place the elected government at the whims of the governor, the court commented.

 

The court also wondered if blanket timelines for the President and governor can be justified merely by certain isolated instances of delay.