SC States it cannot Impose Timelines on President and Governors

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• The Supreme Court held that it cannot impose any timelines for decisions of the President and the governor on granting assent to Bills under Articles 200/201 of the constitution.

Background

• Recently, the Supreme Court verdict laid down a timeline for the President and governors to decide on state bills.
• Reason: The Governor is not bound by any time limit to act on a Bill.
  • This creates a situation where the Governor can simply not act on a Bill indefinitely this is referred to as a “Pocket Veto”, although the term is not officially used in the Constitution. 
• The Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot delay or withhold assent to Bills indefinitely once they are passed or re-passed by the state Assembly.
• The ruling set a timeline for the Governor to act on Bills:
  • One month for re-passed Bills.
  • Three months if the Bill is withheld contrary to Cabinet advice.
• It raises questions about the scope of judicial authority under Article 142, and whether the courts can enforce accountability on constitutional functionaries like Governors and the President.

SC Clarification

• Imposition of Timelines: The SC held that in the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the governor, it would not be appropriate for this Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.
• Action on Laws not Bills: The bench concluded that actions of the President or governor with respect to a bill cannot be agitated before the court; and that any action before the court or for judicial review will lie only when the bill becomes law. 
• Reaffirmation of constitutional boundaries: The judgment emphasizes that each constitutional authority must act within its sphere.
• Prolonged Delay: In cases of prolonged delay, the top court said that the courts can issue a limited direction to the governor to decide on a bill.
• The court clarified that the President and Governors cannot resort to “prolonged and evasive inaction” by sitting endlessly on State Bills awaiting their approval.
  • This would amount to a deliberate attempt to thwart the people’s will expressed through the proposed welfare laws passed by State legislatures.

What is Article 142?

• Article 142 of the Indian constitution is a provision that empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.
  • It also makes such decree or order enforceable throughout the territory of India.
• The importance of Article 142 lies in the following aspects:
  • It enables the Supreme Court to exercise executive and legislative functions in certain situations, such as issuing guidelines, directions, or orders to the government or other authorities. 
  • It allows the Supreme Court to intervene in matters of public interest, human rights, constitutional values, or fundamental rights, and to protect them from any violation or infringement. 
  • It enhances the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the constitution and the final arbiter of the law. 
• Criticism: It may encroach upon the principle of separation of powers and the domain of the executive and the legislature, and may invite criticism of judicial overreach or activism. 

How are the Bills Passed by the Governor?

• Article 200 of the Indian Constitution stipulates that when a Bill passed by a State Legislature is presented to the Governor, the Governor has four options:
  • Assent to the Bill, making it law.
  • Withhold assent, effectively rejecting the Bill.
  • Return the Bill to the Legislature for reconsideration (except Money Bills).
  • Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration if the Governor deems it necessary, such as in cases affecting constitutional matters or the powers of the High Court.
• If the Bill is returned and the Legislature passes it again (with or without amendments), the Governor must assent to the Bill and cannot withhold assent.
• Article 201 provides that when a Bill is reserved by the Governor for the President’s consideration, the President can:
  • Assent to the Bill, making it law.
  • Withhold assent, rejecting the Bill.
• Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) to the Legislature with a message for reconsideration.

Concerns of the States

• Interference in State Autonomy: States argue that the Governor’s role in reserving bills for the President undermines the autonomy of state legislatures, especially when the bills are in the State List.
• Misuse of Discretion: There are concerns that Governors reserve bills contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, leading to misuse of discretionary powers.
• Delays in Decision-Making: Many states complain of delays in the President’s decision on reserved bills, which affects the timely enactment of laws.
• Lack of Clear Guidelines: States suggest that there should be clear guidelines for the Governor and Union Government to prevent arbitrary use of discretion.
• Impact on Federalism: Some states believe that Articles 200 and 201, which allow the Governor to reserve bills, are inconsistent with the true federal structure of India.

Conclusion

• In essence, this development is not merely a legal inquiry but a crucial test of India’s federal structure, with implications for the balance of power between the Centre and the States, judicial oversight, and constitutional morality.

Source: IE