E-Paper
Top court warns of ‘risk’ in fixing timelines for Guvs, Prez on bills
The Supreme Court cautions against setting deadlines for governors and the President on state bills, fearing it may risk judicial overreach into legislative processes.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned that prescribing deadlines for governors and the President to decide on state bills could draw constitutional courts into a zone of “risk”, even though legislative processes require expediency.
“We are not saying that there is no requirement of expediency in legislative processes. But to fix a time limit is a risk the court takes,” observed a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar.
As it continued hearing the presidential reference on gubernatorial powers, the bench added: “Would the governor be expected to act within 24 hours in case of an emergency? Perhaps in certain circumstances. But is that for the court to decide?”
The reference, sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May, questions the Supreme Court’s April ruling that imposed a one-month deadline on governors to act on re-enacted bills and a three-month limit on the President, even though the Constitution itself is silent on timelines. The judgment has since triggered an intense debate on whether such timelines alter the constitutional scheme.
Despite the bench’s caution, some of the states arguing against the reference pressed the view that governors cannot indefinitely delay bills.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, submitted that once bills are passed by the legislature and discussions are held with the governor, the council of ministers can advise him under Article 163 to grant assent, and the governor would then have “no choice” but to do so.
“In my view, it may not be appropriate for the council of ministers to invoke Article 163 immediately after the passage of every bill, but after discussions, if the governor persists in withholding assent, the council can advise him to assent. At that stage, the governor has no option,” Venugopal said.
He stressed that there is no scope for withholding assent indefinitely. “If the bill is killed, reasons have to be given. Reasons will make it open to judicial review. The governor is not there to subvert the legislature. He is part of the legislature,” he added.
Venugopal also argued that urgency was particularly critical in the case of money bills. “Non-assent in human terms would mean dependence of the State. There is no question of the governor having any right to withhold assent to a money bill. The Constitution itself makes that clear,” he said.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing Karnataka, echoed this position, contending that the governor has no veto over state bills. “On a plain reading of the proviso, any interpretation that confers upon the governor an unqualified power of veto is antithetical to the existence of elected state legislatures,” he said. A governor can at best return a bill for reconsideration, but if the legislature passes it again, assent is mandatory, he maintained.
He also pointed out that under Article 74(1), the President is bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, and the Union’s contention that the President enjoys wider discretion was contrary to the Constitution bench ruling in the Shamsher Singh case.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, for Punjab, argued that a governor has only three options under Article 200: assent, withhold by returning the bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. “The acceptance of a power to indefinitely withhold assent would create a constitutional paradox,” he submitted.
On the meaning of “as soon as possible” in Article 200, Datar said the phrase must be read contextually. “A simple amendment bill can be assented to within a day. A complex bill, involving Union list entries or parliamentary law, may require more time. But it cannot mean infinite time,” he said.
Datar went further to argue that if the Constitution is silent, the Supreme Court has on earlier occasions imposed timelines to ensure certainty in the law. “The effectiveness of law lies in predictability. Your lordships can impose a timeline. If your lordships could read substantive due process into Article 21, then why not here?” he asked.
But the bench remained sceptical. It warned that judicially enforcing timelines could place courts in the role of monitoring legislative processes, while further pointing out to the possibility of emergencies requiring faster timelines, questioning whether the court could calibrate such scenarios.
The court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday when it is expected to reserve it for judgment.
The presidential reference, sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May, has placed 14 questions before the court. Among them are whether the Supreme Court can judicially craft procedural mechanisms in areas where the Constitution is silent, and whether fixing timelines for constitutional authorities amounts to encroaching upon discretion vested in them by the framers.
In the April ruling, the two-judge bench fixed a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor’s prolonged inaction was “illegal”.
