Presidential Reference On Bills' Assent Timelines : Supreme Court's Opinion | Live Updates
The Supreme Court will pronounce its opinion today on the Presidential Reference on whether timelines can be set for the Governors and the President for granting assent to Bills.A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar will pronounce the verdict at 10.30 AM. The bench heard the matter...
The Supreme Court will pronounce its opinion today on the Presidential Reference on whether timelines can be set for the Governors and the President for granting assent to Bills.
A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar will pronounce the verdict at 10.30 AM.
The bench heard the matter for ten days and reserved its opinion on September 11.
The Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Constitution was made in May, soon after the judgment delivered by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to act on Bills.
Follow this page for live-updates.
CJI clarifies that this opinion is unanimous.
CJI: not all cases will lead to the court giving directions. It will depend on appropriate circumstances.
summary:
1. governor has 3 constitutional otpions- assent, reserve for president, withhold and return the Bill to assembly.
2. governor exercise discretion in exercising three options.
3. Discharge of function is not justiciable. court can't enter into merits. But prolonged, unexplained, or indefinite delay, the court can issue limited discretion. Same with President.
4. Absolute bar on judicial review. But in case of prolonged inaction, the constitutional court can exercise. constitutional office
5. not appropriate to judicially prescribe timelines for Governor or President.
6. President not to seek advise under Article 143 everytime Governor reserves Bill for President.
7. Decision of President and Governor not justiciable at the stage of Bill.
8. Powers of governor and president can't be substituted using Article 142. No question of deemed assent.
9. Assent of governor can't be supplanted by the Court.
CJI: when governor chooses not to act, the constitutional courts can exercise judicial review. We can issue a limited direction to the Governor to act without observing anything on merit.
CJI: the court in TN was bound by the earlier decision, and discharge of functions of the governor. It is not justiciable. The most drastic concept is that assent can be challenged by any population at the stage of bill.
Discharge of governor or president function not justiciable. Judicial review can be invoked only when the bill has become a law.
We also clarify that the President is not bound to seek review when the Bill is reserved by the Governor under Article 200. If in extraneous consideration, the President wants to seek, it can.
However, the consequent question that arises is what redressal lies when the Governor does not assent- while merits of action can't be looked into by the Court, unaction prolonged, undefinite, without reason will invite limited judicial scrutiny!
#BREAKING #Supreme Court holds that timelines cannot be fixed for the grant of assent for Bills by the Governor.
SC says the concept of "deemed assent" is against the spirit of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.
CJI: Governor has no option for withholding simpliciter. Therefore, he has three options: assent, reserve for president, or return to the assembly. Discretion is in respect to exercising three options.
On time limits, and deemed assent
CJI: Articles 200 and 201 are framed to allow elasticity. The imposition of a timeline is strictly contrary. The concept of deemed assent presuppose that constitutional authority would place a substitute role for the role of the governor- its antithetical to the separation of powers. we have no hesitation in concluding that deemed assent is virtually a takeover of functions of a constitutional authority!
Presidential Reference : Second query - Supreme Court says that the Governor has discretion while deciding to grant assent to bills under Article 200.
SC accepts the argument of Union that Governor need not act as per aid and advice of Cabinet in assenting to bills.
Q1: withholding of assent must be accompanied by returning of the bill to the house- first query answered against Union.
CJI: when governor is bound by aid and advise of council of ministers- before we opine, both sides rely on the same judgment on discretion of the governor-Nebam Rebia, Shamsher Singh, MP police establishment- we are of the option that ordinarily the governor exercises functions with the aid and advise, and constitution provides that in certain cases, he can exercise discretion. It is either expressely or implicitly provided.
Q2: 'in the option of governor' used in Article 200 is a definite expression that the governor enjoys discretion. limited discretion only in second proviso is not an acceptable position. We find that the Governor has discretion in reserving or referring the Bill to the assembly.
Presidential Reference - Supreme Court answers first question against the Union.
Holds that if the Governor is withholding assent to the Bill, then it must be necessarily returned to the Legislature.