Courts cannot fix timeline for President, governor to act on bills passed by assembly: SC

Rendering its opinion on a reference made by President Draupadi Murmu, a five-judge constitution bench presided by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai also said that the concept of deemed assent to bills is “antithetical not only to the spirit of the Constitution but also specifically the doctrine of separation of power which is a part of the basic structure of Indian Constitution.”

The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said that “the text of Article 200 and 201 has been framed in such a manner so as to provide a sense of elasticity for constitutional authorities to perform their functions, keeping in mind the diverse context and situation and by consequences of the need for balancing that might arrive in the process of law making in a federal and democratic country like ours. The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserved.”

The opinion essentially rolls back parts of the April ruling by a two-judge bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala which held that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in granting assent was unconstitutional and set specific timelines for action. The SC had then also granted “deemed assent” to certain Bills that were pending. The SC’s advice to the President states that while timelines cannot be set and “deemed assent” cannot be granted by the SC itself, states have a right to approach the Court when there is a delay. The advice seeks to protect a line in the sand on the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.

On deemed assent, the court said, “The concept of ‘deemed assent’ in the context of Articles 200 and 201 presupposes that one constitutional authority (herein, the Court), could play a ‘substitutional role’ for another constitutional functionary (herein, the Governor, or President). Such a usurpation of the gubernatorial function of the Governor, and similarly of the President’s functions, is antithetical not only to the spirit of the Constitution, but also specifically, the doctrine of separation of powers – which is a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.”

The court clarified that the if the Governor sits on the bill forever, it would invite “limited judicial scrutiny” though courts cannot go into merits of action.

On April 8 this year, a two-judge SC bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan while hearing the case related to pending Bills in Tamil Nadu, had set a timeline for governors to act on pending Bills, and, for the first time, prescribed that the President should take a decision on the Bills reserved for consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a reference to the Supreme Court in May, President Murmu posed 14 crucial questions on the verdict.

The Constitution bench began hearing in the matter on August 19. The SC had on September 11 reserved its decision on the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu.