In a crucial ruling, 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 stressed 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 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 set 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 had asked, “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?” She had cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says 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 today said the imposition of a timeline is “strictly contrary” to the Constitution. The other judges on the bench were Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice AS Chandurkar.
The court also struck down the arguments regarding ‘deemed assent’ made in the two-judge bench’s judgment. It said “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”.