New Delhi, Nov 20 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Thursday said that courts cannot impose timelines on the Governor or the President for granting assent to Bills and that the concept of “deemed assent”, invoked earlier this year in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, is “antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution” and violates the principle of separation of powers.
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, responding to the Presidential reference made in the aftermath of the Tamil Nadu Bills verdict, observed that the imposition of a timeline would be strictly contrary to the constitutional “elasticity” deliberately built into the scheme of Articles 200 and 201, and that any judicial attempt to prescribe time limits would “supplant the authority of another constitutional organ”.
“The imposition of a timeline would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves. [T]he concept of deemed assent is a takeover of the powers of another authority and Article 142 cannot be used for the same,” opined the five-judge Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar.
The apex court reiterated that while the discharge of the Governor’s functions under Article 200 is not justiciable, constitutional courts may issue “a limited mandamus for the Governor to act under Article 200 within a reasonable time without getting into the merits of discretion.”
It said that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, holding that the Constitution provides only three “clear options”, i.e., either grant assent, return the Bill to the legislature with comments, or refer it to the President.
“We hold that the Governor does not have the power to simpliciter withhold. [T]he three clear options he has are to either grant assent, return the Bill to the legislature with comments, or refer it to the President. He has discretion in choosing any of these three options,” opined the CJI Gavai-led Bench.
“It is the elected government, the Cabinet, that should be in the driver’s seat and that there cannot be two executive power centres,” the apex court added, rejecting the Centre’s arguments that Article 200 confers an unrestricted discretion on the Governor.
The Constitution Bench opinion is contrary to the view taken earlier this year by a two-judge Bench, which, invoking Article 142, treated ten Bills in Tamil Nadu as deemed to have been assented to after prolonged delay by Governor R.N. Ravi and set a three-month deadline for gubernatorial and presidential decisions.
–IANS
pds/dpb