Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Three of the five Supreme Court justices hearing the Presidential Reference on Tuesday, September 2, orally observed that Governors cannot sit endlessly over bills placed before them for assent.
The five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar is hearing the Presidential Reference after the two-judge SC bench on April 8 imposed a three-month deadline for the President and Governors to decide on the bills. The judgement was given after the Tamil Nadu government approached the SC over the delay in passing the bills.
According to The Hindu, CJI BR Gavai, Justices Vikram Nath and PS Narasimha also remarked that Governors could neither delay the wisdom of the legislature indefinitely nor impede the functioning of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court also sought to know what consequences the President or the Governors would face if they did not follow the timeline for clearing bills.
On the sixth day of the hearing, CJI Gavai reportedly asked, “Can the Governor or the President be hauled up for contempt of court if the bills are not cleared in terms of timelines?”
In response to this, the Tamil Nadu government, through senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, replied that "deemed assent" to the bills can be a consequence, according to Deccan Herald.
Tamil Nadu was represented by Singhvi and P Wilson. They said that Governors “cannot assume to be royalty in a Republic,” while senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, said that high offices under the Constitution must work “collaboratively and not combatively” with each other.
“When the Constitution is clear that a Governor should act with immediacy, why should he hold back bills? There is a sense of urgency associated with the Governor’s assent. Legislation is a sovereign act. It cannot wait,” Sibal argued.
Singhvi submitted that the timelines were necessary due to repeated instances of Governors withholding bills indefinitely.
However, the court said that certain instances of delay in granting assent to bills cannot justify the laying down of a blanket timeline for the Governors and President to act as per Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively.
Justice Vikram Nath observed that laying down a general timeline will practically amount to the Court amending the Constitution, since Articles 200 and 201 do not specify any timeline. "We will have to amend the Constitution to impose the timelines," Justice Nath said, LiveLaw reported.
The court reportedly said that if there are individual cases of delay, the aggrieved parties can approach the court to seek relief. However, it cannot mean that the court should lay down a general timeline for the actions of the Governor and the President, the court verbally said.
The court also noted that the Constitution has specifically provided for "flexibility" by saying that the bills be returned "as soon as possible" without specifying any time limits.