Courts cannot fix timeline for governor, President to give assent to bills passed by assembly: SC         

In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that timelines cannot be fixed for the governor and the President for giving assent to bills passed by state assemblies and the judiciary cannot also grant deemed assent to them.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai unanimously held that it would be against the interest of federalism, if the Governor without following due process under Article 200 (power to governor to provide assent to bills passed by assembly), is allowed to withhold bills.

The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said, "We don't think governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies."

While answering the Presidential reference in which President Droupadi Murmu has sought the opinion of apex court under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution, the bench said that governors have three options -- either to grant assent or send bills for reconsideration or refer them to the President.

It said in a democratic country like India, fixing timelines for governors is against elasticity provided by the Constitution.

The top court also deprecated the grant of “deemed assent” granted by the apex court on April 8 in the case of Tamil Nadu to the bills held by the state governor, saying it amounts to virtually taking over functions of constitutional authority.

The top court also ruled that the discharge of Governor's power under Article 200 is not justiciable.

The court held that Article 142, which provides immense power to the top court, can't be used for granting deemed assent to bills.

Chief Justice BR Gavai said it’s a unanimous verdict on Presidential reference.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed gratitude to the Supreme Court on behalf of President Droupadi Murmu for the “illuminating” verdict.

The five-judge Constitution Bench comprised Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.

After 10 days of marathon arguments by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Arvind P Datar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and others for various state governments, the Bench had on September 11 reserved its verdict.

The Bench had commenced the hearing on August 19 on 14 contentious constitutional questions referred to it by President Droupadi Murmu.

The Centre had urged the Constitution Bench to declare that the April 8 verdict of a two-judge Bench in Tamil Nadu’s case did not lay down the correct law even as Sibal objected to it, saying no such question had been referred to by the President.

The top court had on April 8 set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills and reserving them to the President even after they were re-enacted by the state assembly, terming it "illegal and erroneous". (With PTI)