Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu has asked for central assistance of ₹200 crore to roll out a coconut…
Read More
No timelines for President, guvs to clear bills: SC A larger bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that neither the President nor the Governors are bound by rigid, judicially imposed timelines to grant assent to bills, overturning an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench that had prescribed strict deadlines and introduced the idea of deemed assent in cases of prolonged delay. The Court clarified that while constitutional heads must act with a sense of constitutional responsibility and dispatch, the judiciary cannot legislate fixed time frames where the Constitution provides none. Caption: The Supreme Court of India. Photo: Nin17/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) At the heart of the dispute was the question of whether constitutional functionaries could be compelled by the courts to decide on legislative assent within a set number of days—and whether silence or inaction should automatically convert into deemed assent. The larger bench held that neither proposition aligns with the constitutional text or scheme. Instead, the Court underscored that the Constitution already offers a calibrated framework under Articles 111, 200, and 201, which governs the assent process for the President and Governors, including options like returning bills for reconsideration or reserving them for the President’s consideration. The ruling nullifies the April 8 decision by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu case where strict timelines for gubernatorial assent were laid down, besides introducing the concept of deemed assent in cases of inordinate delays. In that earlier ruling, the bench had attempted to address instances where bills—particularly in opposition-ruled states—were allegedly stalled at Raj Bhavans. Today’s judgment acknowledges the governance concern but states that judicially crafting deadlines and deemed assent rules risks rewriting the Constitution. Context and constitutional balance The case arose amid ongoing tensions between several state governments and Governors over delays in clearing bills, including in Tamil Nadu where a batch of bills had been pending for extended periods. The contested April 8 decision sought to streamline the process by setting time limits and supporting the notion that unreasonable delay equates to approval. However, the Supreme Court’s larger bench emphasized that constitutional conventions should guide timely action, not court-invented clockwork. While rejecting deemed assent, the Court affirmed that Governors and the President are not free to stall legislation indefinitely. They remain duty-bound to act “as soon as reasonably possible” consistent with the constitutional framework and must give reasons when returning bills for reconsideration. The bench called for transparency and accountability through reasoned communication, noting that opacity fosters mistrust and institutional friction. No judicial clock, but no carte blanche – Courts cannot prescribe hard deadlines where the Constitution is silent. – Deemed assent cannot be read into the Constitution by judicial fiat. – Governors must exercise options under Article 200 in a reasonable time and with reasons when sending bills back. – Bills reserved for the President must follow Article 201, with the Union acting expeditiously on aid and advice. – The President’s assent under Article 111 similarly follows constitutional pathways without judicially fixed time limits. By restoring the primacy of constitutional text over judicial innovations like deemed assent, the Court sought to protect separation of powers. It noted that if Parliament or state legislatures believe timelines are necessary, they can consider appropriate constitutional amendments or legislative measures, but courts must refrain from stepping into the lawmaking domain. Federalism, friction, and the path forward The bench took cognizance of a broader pattern: mounting friction in Centre–State relations, prominently reflected in gubernatorial delays. These delays can disrupt governance, stall budgetary measures, and impede reforms approved by elected assemblies. Yet the solution, the Court stressed, lies not in judicial deadlines but in invigorating constitutional conventions, rigorous record-keeping, and transparent communication among Raj Bhavans, state cabinets, and the Union. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that Governors act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in most matters, and their limited discretionary space cannot be turned into a veto through inaction. Where a bill is returned to the assembly and passed again, the Governor is constitutionally constrained to grant assent unless the bill is reserved for the President. The Union, in turn, must process reserved bills without undue delay, mindful of the democratic mandate of state legislatures. Caption: Raj Bhavan, Chennai. Photo: Rasnaboy/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subheading: The Court rejects deemed assent, urges constitutional responsibility By explicitly rejecting deemed assent, the Supreme Court signaled caution against shortcuts that risk unsettling the constitutional architecture. However, it also nudged constitutional heads toward timely, reasoned decision-making. The message is clear: dispatch, transparency, and fidelity to constitutional roles must replace opaqueness and impasse. Political reactions have been mixed. States that have long complained of delays expressed disappointment at the absence of enforceable timelines, fearing continued bottlenecks. Others welcomed the reaffirmation of constitutional boundaries and separation of powers. Legal scholars noted that the ruling may spur institutional reforms within Raj Bhavans and the Union executive—such as standard operating procedures, internal time targets, and public dashboards—to demonstrate accountability without necessitating judicially mandated clocks. What it means for states and citizens For state governments, the judgment underscores the need to maintain robust legislative records, promptly respond to queries from Raj Bhavans, and, where required, repass bills with clarifications to minimize scope for prolonged back-and-forth. For citizens, the takeaway is principled but sober: the Constitution already supplies guardrails, but it relies on good faith, constitutional morality, and political accountability to function smoothly. The Supreme Court’s decision preserves the Constitution’s design, even as it denies quick fixes like deemed assent. Its effectiveness now depends on how earnestly constitutional actors embrace their duties—acting swiftly, speaking clearly, and respecting the people’s legislative choices—without the judiciary having to set a timer. News by The Vagabond News
India’s Supreme Court has overturned the April 8 ruling, holding that the President and Governors aren’t bound by court-imposed clocks…
Read More
