New Delhi (Delhi) [India], November 21 (HBTV): The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its advisory opinion on whether courts can impose timelines on the President and State Governors for acting on Bills passed by State Legislatures.
The Court held that it cannot set timelines for the President or Governors to grant assent to State Bills. However, the bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, clarified that Governors cannot withhold assent indefinitely and must engage in dialogue with State Legislatures to resolve concerns.
A Constitutional Bench headed by the Chief Justice issued the opinion while answering 13 questions referred to it by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The key question concerned whether specific timelines can be fixed for the Governor and the President to grant assent to State Bills.
West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose described the Court’s observations as a ‘landmark judgement’, stating that the apex court had made it clear that ‘the Governor is not a rubber stamp’.
DMK leader Saravanan Annadurai welcomed the Court’s stance, noting that the Governor is expected to act in accordance with the Constitution. He said that if Governors process Bills in good faith and expeditiously, questions of deemed assent would not arise. He added that Governors primarily exist to grant assent to Bills and act constitutionally, and described the judgment as a setback for the BJP when in government.
The DMK spokesperson further argued that Governors may not be necessary, suggesting that their responsibilities could be fulfilled by State Chief Justices, characterising the gubernatorial role as largely ceremonial.
The Presidential reference followed an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which prescribed timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills. President Murmu questioned the validity of that ruling, noting that the Constitution does not specify any such deadlines.
The President’s response emphasised that Article 200 outlines the Governor’s powers to grant, withhold, or reserve assent for the President’s consideration, without prescribing a time frame. Similarly, Article 201 sets out the President’s powers regarding State Bills but does not impose deadlines.
The response also noted that the Constitution requires Presidential assent in several legislative contexts and that the discretionary powers of the Governor and the President, under Articles 200 and 201, are shaped by considerations such as federalism, legal uniformity, national security, and the separation of powers.
In its April 8 verdict, the Supreme Court stated that the Governor does not have the veto authority to indefinitely delay Bills submitted by State Legislatures. The Governor must provide assent when a Bill is resubmitted after reconsideration, and refusal is permissible only if the Bill has been altered.
(ANI)