DH Deciphers | President, Governors and bills: What Supreme Court said on assent & delay

In April, a Supreme Court bench gave an order setting a deadline for the President and Governors to give assent to bills presented before them after their passage by the state legislatures.

A Constitution Bench subsequently scrutinised the order and gave its opinion on Thursday. DH's Sumit Pande explains the answers to the questions raised in the Presidential Reference sought by the Union on the apex court’s earlier order that interpreted the powers of constitutional authorities in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature.

What is the genesis of the case?

The Tamil Nadu government had approached the Supreme Court against the inordinate delay by Governor RN Ravi in giving consent to 10 bills passed by the Assembly. When passed by the Assembly again, the bills were reserved to the President for consideration.

What did the Supreme Court say on the TN government’s plea?

Adjudicating on the plea, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that withholding state legislation was erroneous.

The court said Governors could grant assent, withhold assent or send the bill to the President. On being re-enacted by the state legislature, the Governor had no option but to give consent. It also set timelines for both the Governors and the President to decide on such matters.

What are the timelines?

The court prescribed three clear deadlines: (1) When withholding assent and reserving a bill for the president with the advice of the Council of Ministers, Governors must act within one month. (2) When withholding assent or reserving a bill for the President contrary to the advice of the state government, Governors must decide within three months, and (3) When a bill is presented after reconsideration by the Assembly, Governors must grant assent within one month. There are separate time limits for the President.

Why was the Presidential Reference made to the SC?

Article 143 of the Constitution gives powers to the President of India to seek an “advisory opinion” on questions of law that are of public importance.

In this case, President Droupadi Murmu posed 14 questions on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 that define gubernatorial and presidential powers in the context of the apex court’s April order imposing timelines for clearing bills.

The matter was dealt by a five-member Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai.

What were the questions raised in the reference?

The 14 queries ranged from the constitutional options before Governors and the President, to whether timelines can be imposed through judicial orders on two constitutional authorities when dealing with statutes passed by the state. 

What did the SC say on the constitutional options before Governors?

In the case of “glaring circumstances of inaction”, the court can issue “limited mandamus” to act under Article 200 within a reasonable time frame without getting into the merits of the discretion vested in Governors for discharge of duties. The limited directions by the courts serve as a form of "institutional accountability."

What did the SC say on binding Governors and the President with fixed timelines?

The bench said the Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while "exercising functions under Article 240". The court felt the timelines set in the April judgment impinged on the powers vested in the constitutional authorities and were hence untenable.

The court also struck down the concept of "deemed assent" to bills as prescribed in the earlier order, calling it antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution.

Can the decisions made by the President and Governors as per Articles 200 and 201 be taken up for judicial scrutiny?

The court has made it clear that the discharge of functions envisaged under Articles 200 and 201 is not justiciable. In other words, the decision can’t be challenged in the court of law. However, once the bill becomes a law, it can be challenged.