Forget ‘deemed assent’, forget the timeline prescribed for the President and State Governors to sign or withhold bills. This after India’s Supreme Court, on Thursday, delivered its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference made by the honourable Droupadi Murmu.
President Murmu’s 14-point Reference under Article 143 of India’s Constitution raised a key issue arising from the court's April ruling - can the judiciary set a fixed timeline for Governors to act on Bills passed by elected state assemblies?
The short answer - no.
A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai concluded that the discharge of a Governor’s functions under Article 200 is not justiciable - meaning - it’s not subject to trial in a court of law.
The Bench added that Articles 200 and 201 have been framed in such a manner “as to provide a sense of elasticity for constitutional authorities to perform their functions". And these functions, both of the Governors and the Assemblies, are inter-dependent.
Therefore, the apex court reversed its earlier order setting a three-month deadline for Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures. As per the previous verdict, a failure to act within the stipulated timeframe would be considered 'deemed assent.' In the new advisory opinion, the Bench concludes that it was erroneous of the court to impose such timelines, as it would hinder the elasticity of the lawmaking process.
Most importantly, the judges decried the concept of ‘deemed assent’ as “antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution” (simply put - unconstitutional) as it would threaten “the separation of powers” between the Executive and the Judiciary - a key tenet of any democracy.
So what does this mean for states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala - the original petitioners? Interestingly, they're also calling it a win.
The Bench has left open the option to intervene in cases of glaring inaction, that is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite. In such cases, the Supreme Court said it can issue a limited directive to the Governor.
But, the court would only nudge the Governor to discharge their functions within a reasonable time period, WITHOUT commenting on the merits of the Bill.
