No timelines for Bills
The Tribune Editorial: The SC, in answering the 16th Presidential Reference, has said the President and Governors cannot resort to ‘prolonged and evasive inaction’ by sitting endlessly on state Bills.
In rolling back the timelines it had earlier set for the President and Governors to grant assent to Bills, the Supreme Court has sought to strike a delicate balance within the framework of separation of powers. The judiciary cannot fetter the President or the Governors to a one-size-fits-all time table to dispose of Bills or usurp their functions through ‘deemed consent’ at the expiry of a time frame, the Constitution Bench has said. It’s a valid argument. In April, when a two-judge Bench set timelines, the underlying message was hard to miss. It seemed to address concerns over Raj Bhavans playing an obstructionist and adversarial role in Opposition-ruled states by delaying Bills passed by state legislatures. The ruling by the five-judge Bench suggests it has found a viable alternative without overstepping its mandate by meddling in legislative procedures through timelines. Has it?
