The Supreme Court clarified that the court cannot assume the constitutional role of the Governor. Rejecting the demand to set a timeline for bills, the Court stated that the Constitution has kept this process flexible and that arrangement will continue.
New Delhi: In a significant case directly impacting India's constitutional framework, the Supreme Court today delivered a major verdict. Following hearings on petitions seeking to fix a timeline for assent to bills sent to the President and Governor, a five-judge Constitution Bench clearly stated that the court cannot take over the role of the Governor. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution has deliberately kept this process flexible, and the court cannot disrupt this flexibility.
Basis of the Verdict
The five-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) stated while reading out the verdict that the Indian Constitution provides clear options to the President and Governor for deciding on bills. Under Article 200, the Governor can either give assent to a bill, return it, or reserve it for the President's consideration. The Court stated that there is no fourth option, and the court cannot assume these constitutional roles.
The Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold a bill, but the court also cannot impose any timeline on this process. Doing so would not only be against the spirit of the Constitution but also violate the principle of Separation of Powers.
Comments on the Tamil Nadu Verdict
During the verdict, the Supreme Court also referred to the Tamil Nadu case in which a two-judge bench had granted ‘Deemed Assent’ to ten bills under Article 142. The five-judge Constitution Bench clearly stated that this directive was unconstitutional because it allowed the court to assume the Governor's role.
The Court unequivocally stated that constitutional courts cannot compel the Governor to decide on a bill within a stipulated time. Nor can the court automatically grant deemed assent to any pending bill.
Why Setting a Timeline Was Deemed Unconstitutional
The CJI stated that the Constitution has deliberately maintained flexibility in the powers granted to the Governor and the President. This flexibility is a fundamental characteristic of India's federal structure. If the court or any other institution were to compel the Governor or President to decide within a fixed period, this system would collapse.
The Court stated that the concept of Deemed Assent implies one authority making a decision in place of another authority. This is constitutionally incorrect because courts cannot exercise the powers of the President or Governor under any circumstances.
When Judicial Review Is Possible
The Supreme Court clarified that judicial review can only occur once a bill becomes law. The Court stated that it cannot even be imagined that the President would consult the Court every time before assenting to a bill. If the President requires advice, the option of Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143 is already available for that purpose.
Therefore, the Court stated that imposing a timeline on the President or Governor for making decisions would not only be unconstitutional but would also disturb the proper balance of powers.
Court's Final Remark on the Governor's Role
The Supreme Court reiterated that the court cannot, in any way, assume the role of the Governor. The Constitution has assigned independent roles to the Governor and the President, and it is not the court's function to interfere in this process. The court can only examine whether the law enacted after the completion of the process conforms to the Constitution.
