Supreme Court Clarifies: No Timelines Can Bind President and Governors on Bill Approvals

The Supreme Court has responded to President Murmu's questions

New Delhi:

In a crucial clarification, the Supreme Court today held that the President and Governors of states cannot be bound by timelines when it comes to approving Bills. A five-judge Constitution bench emphasized that the actions of the President or Governors are not "justiciable" and judicial review can be invoked only when a Bill becomes a law.

This clarification comes in response to President Droupadi Murmu's questions to the top court following a two-judge bench's verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case that effectively established a deadline for the President and Governors to clear Bills passed by the legislature.

Seeking the court's opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President inquired, "In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?"

The President also questioned whether the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable.

"Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?" President Murmu asked.

She referenced Article 361 of the Constitution, which states that the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai declared today that the imposition of a timeline is "strictly contrary" to the Constitution. The bench included Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice AS Chandurkar.

The court also invalidated the arguments regarding 'deemed assent' made in the two-judge bench's judgment. It stated that "deemed consent of the Governor, or President, under Article 200 or 201 at the expiry of a judicially set timeline, is virtually a takeover, and substitution, of the executive functions by the Judiciary, through judicial pronouncement, which is impermissible within the contours of our written Constitution".

The Tamil Nadu Case

On April 8 this year, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan delivered a judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu case, where the DMK government had accused Governor RN Ravi of indefinitely withholding bills. The court utilized its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare 10 withheld Bills "as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor".

"We are in no way undermining the office of the Governor. All we say is that the Governor must act with due deference to the settled conventions of parliamentary democracy; respecting the will of the people being expressed through the legislature as well as the elected government responsible to the people," the judgment noted.

The Message To President

The strongly worded judgment of the two-judge bench in April faced criticism from some ruling party leaders, who claimed the court's remarks constituted judicial overreach. The court had stated that in cases where a Bill is reserved on the grounds of "not being in consonance with the constitutional principles and involves questions of constitutional validity, the executive is supposed to exercise restraint".

"It is expected that the Union executive should not assume the role of the courts in determining the vires of a bill and should, as a matter of practice, refer such question to the Supreme Court under Article 143. We have no qualms in stating that the hands of the executive are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill and only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill," the court had declared.

The President Seeks Opinion

A month after the top court's judgment, the President wrote to the Supreme Court seeking its opinion on whether timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President.

President Murmu also inquired if a Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable -- subject to a trial in court. "In the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?" President Murmu asked the Supreme Court.

The President's letter emerged amid discussions in power corridors regarding whether the top court's Tamil Nadu judgment exemplified judicial overreach.

The Top Court's Clarification

The five-judge bench has stated that the text of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution has been framed to provide a "sense of elasticity, for constitutional authorities to perform their functions, keeping in mind the diverse contexts and situations, and by consequence the need for balancing that might arise in the process of law making in a federal, and democratic country like ours. The imposition of timelines would be strictly contrary to this elasticity that the Constitution so carefully preserves," the bench declared.

"There is no denying, that judicial review too, is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. This judicial review, however, is not an unbridled scope that can negate or destroy the separation of powers doctrine," the court stated.

The Constitution bench, however, added a qualification. "We are of the considered opinion that while the merits of action taken by the Governor under Article 200 cannot be looked into by Courts - inaction that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite, will certainly invite limited judicial scrutiny," it affirmed.

The court concluded that no constitutional organ or authority can function independently. "The working of our constitutional scheme is premised on constitutional authorities - who are each assigned specific but inter-dependent roles - performing their duties, akin to cogs that keep a clock ticking. They depend on each other, to keep the Constitution humming, and thus, working," the court observed.