Within 3 months: In a first, Supreme Court sets timeline for President's decision on Bills reserved for consideration by Governor

This comes amid the rap to Tamil Nadu governor R N Ravi over withholding assent for 10 Bills.

New Delhi: In its judgment setting a timeline for the Governor to act on bills passed by the state legislature, the Supreme Court for the first time has also fixed a three-month deadline for the President to take a decision on the bills reserved for consideration by the Governor.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said while grant of assent by the Governor or the President, being acts which are generally taken upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, may not be justiciable, the withholding of assent or reservation of bills for the consideration of the President by the Governor in exercise of his discretion, which is subject to the limits defined by the Constitution, would be justiciable on the touchstone of judicially determinable standards.

In its April 8 judgment, declaring TN Governor R N Ravi's decision to reserve 10 bills for President after those were re-enacted as illegal, the court set the timeline, saying that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months.

"The constitutional scheme does not, in any manner, provide that a constitutional authority can exercise its powers under the Constitution arbitrarily. This necessarily implies that the withholding of assent under Article 201 is to be accompanied by the furnishing of reasons for such withholding," the bench said.

The court underscored that the position of law is settled that even where no time-limit is prescribed for the exercise of any power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time. The exercise of powers by the President under Article 201 cannot be said to be immune to this general principle.

Keeping in mind the expedient nature of the provision and having regard to the reports of Sarkaria and Puncchi Commissions, as well as the Memorandum of February 4, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the bench said, "We prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State".

The bench declared that the observations made by this court in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals that the assent of the President is non-justiciable, cannot be stretched to mean that as a general rule, the exercise of powers by the Governor under Article 200 in his discretion would also be immune from judicial review.

The court also pointed out the reservation of a bill on grounds such as personal dissatisfaction of the Governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone.

The court said the reservation of the 10 Bills which are the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition by the Governor for the consideration of the President on November 28, 2023 after their due reconsideration by the State legislature in terms of the first proviso to Article 200, being in contravention of the procedure prescribed under Article 200, is declared to be erroneous in law, non est and thus, is hereby set aside.

The bench, in exercise of inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, declared these 10 Bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature i.e., on November 18, 2023.

"We are in no way undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy; respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people," the bench said.

The court said the Governor has to act within a maximum of one month in case of withholding of assent or reserving bill for the President. The Governor has to return the bill within a maximum of three months in case of withholding of assent, contrary to advice of State Council of Ministers.

In case of reservation of bill for President contrary to advice of Council of Ministers, the Governor must take such a decision within a maximum of three months and in case of presentation of bill after reconsideration, the Governor must grant assent forthwith or within a maximum of one month, the court said.

The court said the Governor must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes.

In times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the State machinery by his sagacity, wisdom and not run it into a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not an inhibitor. All his actions must be impelled keeping in mind the dignity of the high constitutional office that he occupies, the court said.

"Any action contrary to the express choice of the people, in other words, the State legislature would be a renege of his constitutional oath," the bench said.

The court said the constitutional authorities occupying high offices must be guided by the values of the Constitution. These values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggle and sacrifice of our forefathers.

"When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by their constitutional oath and if the course of action adopted by them furthers the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the constitutional mandate, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has been built," the bench said.

The court held the view taken in B K Pavitra Vs Union of India (2019) to be per incuriam to the extent of the following two observations made therein – first, that the Constitution confers discretion upon the Governor insofar as the reservation of bills for the consideration of the President is concerned and; secondly, that the exercise of discretion by the Governor under Article 200 is beyond judicial scrutiny.