Tamil Nadu Judgment Wrong For Prescribing Timelines For Governor & President : Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

While rendering its opinion on 14 questions of law sought by the President of India, the Supreme Court today has clarified that certain paragraphs of the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment prescribing timelines for the President and Governor to act under Article 200/201 are erroneous.  

The Tamil Nadu judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench on April 8, in which the Court held that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted mala fide in reserving the Bills for the President after they were re-enacted by the State Assembly. It therefore held that those Bills were "deemed assented" using Article 142 and consequently laid down timelines for the President and the Governor to follow. 

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar opined that prescribing timelines were wrong. The bench also held that there was no occasion for the two-judge bench to having down down timelines for the President. 

"In view of the above reasoning, we are required to clarify that the paragraphs 260-261 of the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), pertaining to the imposition of timelines on the Governor under Article 200 are erroneous. It must also be pointed out that there was no occasion for the issue of setting a timeline for disposal of Bills referred to the President under Article 201, to arise before this Court, while considering State of Tamil Nadu (supra). Thus, it is clarified that any observations on the aspect of timelines applicable to the President under Article 201, or conclusions thereof on this aspect, are merely obiter, and ought to be treated as such," the bench said.

The paragraph 260-261 pertains to the directions X to XIV passed by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, which said:

"(X) There is no expressly specified time-limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time-limit, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon bills which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the law-making machinery in the State.

(XI) The use of the expression “as soon as possible” in the first proviso makes it clear that the Constitution infuses a sense of urgency upon the Governor and expects him to act with expediency if he decides to declare the withholding of assent.

(XII) The settled position of law is that where no time-limit for the exercise of a power is prescribed, the same must be exercised in a reasonable time period. Guided by the decisions of this Court in A.G. Perarivalan (supra) and Keisham (supra), we find that it is no more res-integra that the courts are well-empowered to prescribe a time-limit for the discharge of any function or exercise of any power which, by its very nature, demands expediency. 

(XIII) Prescription of a general time-limit by this Court, within which the ordinary exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 must take place, is not the same thing as amending the text of the Constitution to read in a time-limit which would fundamentally change the procedure and mechanism stipulated by Article 200. Prescription of such time-limits within the scheme of Article 200 is with a view to lay down a determinable judicial standard for ascertaining the reasonable exercise of such power and to curtail any arbitrary inaction. This Court while prescribing a time-limit for the exercise of power, is guided by the inherent expedient nature of the procedure prescribed under Article 200.

(XIV) Keeping in mind the constitutional significance of Article 200 and the role it plays in the federal polity of the country, the following  timelines are being prescribed. Failure to comply with these timelines would make the inaction of the Governors subject to judicial review by the courts:

(i) In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President, upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such an action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month;

(ii) In case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three months;

(iii) In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months;

(iv) In case of presentation of a bill after reconsideration in accordance with the first proviso, the Governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month."

Case Details: IN RE : ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA