PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE: SC questions blanket timelines for Governors, President on Bills

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether it can prescribe blanket timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures. A five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI BR Gavai asked, “Can we lay down a straightjacket formula under Article 142 of the Constitution for exercising the powers of the President and Governors?”

The court’s query came during the sixth day of hearings on the Presidential Reference on timelines for assent to state bills. The bench noted that certain instances of delay in granting assent to Bills cannot justify laying down a blanket timeline for Governors and the President to act under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution, respectively.

In individual cases of delay, aggrieved parties can approach the court, which may direct a decision to be taken within a time limit. However, this cannot mean that the court should lay down a general timeline for Governors and the President, the bench said.

The Constitution provides flexibility by stating that bills be returned “as soon as possible” without specifying any time limits. Senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu Government, argued that case-to-case interventions would not solve the problem and supported the three-month deadline fixed by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case.

Singhvi emphasised that timelines are necessary to deal with repeated instances of Governors sitting on Bills indefinitely, which could effectively exercise a “pocket veto”, stalling legislation indefinitely. However, Justice Nath pointed out that laying down a general timeline would practically amount to the court amending the Constitution.

The bench also wondered what the consequences would be if the Governor or the President did not follow the timeline prescribed by the court. Singhvi suggested that the situation could lead to “deemed assent” being granted to the Bills, but Justice Nath noted that this would create a conflict of interest if the Bill’s validity was challenged in court.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal Government, argued that withholding assent thwarts the will of the people and that neither governors nor the President have independent legislative power. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, maintained that judicial intervention in such matters would destabilise the constitutional balance and go against the concept of separation of powers.