New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said no timelines can be imposed on governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state assemblies. The Supreme Court is also barred from giving deemed assent to the bills, the apex court said in its long-awaited judgment.
In its unanimous verdict, a five-judge Constitution bench also ruled that governors cannot sit over bills beyond the powers granted to them under Article 200.
“We don’t think governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies,” said the bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai and also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar.
Fixing timelines for governors in a democratic country like India is against the elasticity provided by the Constitution, the court added.
Reading out the operative part of the verdict, the CJI said governors have three options under Article 200 — to grant assent to bills, refer them to the president or withhold assent and send them back to the assembly with his or her comments.
“In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the governor, it would not be appropriate for this court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200,” the bench said.
Deciding a plea of the Tamil Nadu government, a bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala in April this year fixed a three-month period for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state assemblies.
The five-judge bench agreed to deliberate on 14 crucial questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu on the apex court’s April 8 verdict.
Exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), President Murmu had said that in the present circumstances it appears questions of law have arisen and are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Article 143 (1) deals with the power of the president to consult the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the bench said exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of the president/governor cannot be substituted in any manner under Article 142.
“…we hereby clarify that the Constitution, specifically Article 142 even, does not allow for the concept of ‘deemed assent’ of Bills,” it said.
Article 142 grants immense power to the top court to pass any order for doing complete justice in any case.
“The first proviso to Article 200 is bound to the substantive part of the provision, and restricts the existing options, rather than offering a fourth option. Pertinently, the third option – to withhold assent and return with comments – is only available to the governor when it is not a money Bill,” the bench said.
It said governors enjoy discretion in choosing from these three constitutional options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers while exercising powers under Article 200.
“The discharge of the governor’s function under Article 200, is not justiciable. The court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken,” it said.
However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, the court can issue a limited mandamus for the governor to discharge function under the Constitution within a reasonable time, without making any observations on merits, the apex court said.
Referring to Article 361, it said there is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the governor to judicial proceedings.
“However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that this court is empowered to exercise in situations of prolonged inaction by the governor under Article 200,” it said.
The bench clarified that while the governors continue to enjoy personal immunity, their constitutional office is subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
“The decisions of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. It is impermissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law,” the bench said.
It said the governor’s legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.
On September 11, the apex court reserved its verdict.
