The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that courts cannot prescribe timelines for the President or Governors to grant assent to Bills passed by state legislatures and said the concept of “deemed assent” is contrary to the constitutional framework.
A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud — responding to a Presidential reference following the verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case — held that fixing a deadline for constitutional authorities would run counter to the flexibility built into Articles 200 and 201.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, observed that imposing a judicial time limit would amount to “supplanting the authority of another constitutional organ”.
The court stated that while the Governor’s decision-making under Article 200 is not open to judicial review, constitutional courts may issue a “limited mandamus” directing the Governor to act within a reasonable timeframe, without intervening in the merits of the discretion exercised.
Reiterating that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold Bills, the Bench clarified that the Constitution provides only three courses of action: grant assent, return the Bill to the Legislature with comments, or refer it to the President.
“The Governor does not have the power to simpliciter withhold,” the court held, noting that the choice among the three permissible options is a matter of discretion.
The court also noted that executive authority rests with the elected government and that dual power centres are inconsistent with the constitutional scheme. The Centre’s argument that Article 200 grants unrestricted discretion to the Governor was rejected.
The opinion differs from a two-judge Bench ruling earlier this year that invoked Article 142 to treat ten Bills in Tamil Nadu as having received “deemed assent” after delays from Governor R.N. Ravi and prescribed a three-month timeline for gubernatorial and presidential action.
–IANS