In a significant constitutional verdict settling the friction between Raj Bhavans and elected governments, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the judiciary cannot prescribe rigid timelines for Governors to grant assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies. However, the Apex Court firmly clarified that Governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely, asserting that “prolonged or unexplained delays” could invite judicial review.
A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar delivered the verdict on a Presidential reference. The reference sought clarity following a prior two-judge bench ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which had effectively set a deadline for the President and Governors to clear legislative Bills.
No ‘Deemed Assent’ by Courts
Delivering the judgment, the Bench ruled that the concept of courts declaring “deemed assent” to Bills when deadlines are missed is impermissible. The Court observed that such an approach runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and undermines the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Bench noted that if the judiciary were to declare a Bill as passed simply because a timeline was breached, it would effectively amount to the courts taking over functions constitutionally assigned to the Governor.
Judicial Review for ‘Indefinite Delays’
While refusing to set a hard clock for gubernatorial assent, the Supreme Court struck a balance by emphasizing that constitutional functionaries must act in a “time-bound manner.”
The Court observed that if there is a prolonged or unexplained delay at the Governor’s end that effectively stalls the legislative process, the constitutional courts are not helpless. In such scenarios, the Court stated it may step in using its “limited power of judicial review” to direct the Governor to take a decision within a specified timeframe. The Bench clarified that this intervention would focus solely on the delay and would not touch upon the substance or merit of the Bill itself.
The Article 200 Clarification: ‘Withholding’ Means ‘Returning’
A critical aspect of the verdict focused on the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the Governor’s powers regarding Bills. The Court dismissed the Union government’s contention that a Governor could merely “withhold” assent to a Bill without any further action, effectively killing the legislation in a pocket veto.
The Bench clarified the three options available to a Governor under Article 200 once a Bill is presented:
- Give assent.
- Withhold assent.
- Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
Crucially, the Court held that “withholding assent” is inseparable from the requirement under the first proviso to Article 200, which mandates that the Bill be sent back to the Assembly for reconsideration.
“The proviso is not an additional, fourth option but a qualification to the power of withholding assent,” the Bench observed. Therefore, if a Governor decides not to grant assent, they are constitutionally bound to return the Bill to the House. The Court warned that allowing Governors to withhold assent without returning the Bill would undermine the nation’s federal structure.
The Bench had heard the matter for 10 days before reserving its opinion on September 11. This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal relations, particularly in states where opposition-led governments have frequently accused Governors of delaying crucial legislation.
