Instances Of Delay In Bills Assent Can't Justify Imposing Fixed Timelines For Governors & President : Supreme Court During Hearing

On the 6th day of the hearing of the Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court orally observed that certain instances of delay in granting assent to Bills cannot justify the laying down of a blanket timeline for the Governors and President to act as per Articles 200 and 201of the Constitution respectively.

If there are individual cases of delay, the aggrieved parties can approach the Court to seek relief, and the Court may direct that the decision should be taken within a time limit; however, it cannot mean that the Court should lay down a general timeline for the actions of the Governor and the President, the Court verbally said.

The Court pointed out that the Constitution has specifically provided for "flexibility" by saying that the Bills be returned "as soon as possible" without specifying any time limits.  

A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, who supported the timeline of 3 months fixed by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.

Singhvi submitted that the timelines were necessary in view of the repeated instances of Governors withholding Bills indefinitely.

"Can we lay down a straightjacket formula under Article 142 for exercising of the power of the President and the Governor?", CJI Gavai asked. Singhvi, urging the Court not to take an "ivory-tower" view and to deal with the "contemporaneous realities of huge delay", asserted that a "general timeline" is necessary for the exercise of powers under Articles 200 and 201.

Justice Nath observed that laying down a general timeline will practically amount to the Court amending the Constitution, since Articles 200 and 201 do not specify any timeline. "We will have to amend the Constitution to impose the timelines," Justice Nath said.

The bench, especially Justice Narasimha and Justice Nath, asked about the consequences of the Governor/President not following the timeline. Can the Governor or the President be hauled up for contempt of court, they asked. Singhvi replied that "deemed assent" to the Bills can be a consequence.

During the arguments, Singhvi referred to a recent three-judge bench judgment, authored by CJI Gavai, directing the Telangana Speaker to take a decision on the disqualification petitions within three months. CJI pointed out that there, the Court issued a direction which was specific to the case. "We did not direct that all Speakers must decide disqualification petitions within three months. It was specific to the facts and circumstances of the case," CJI said.

Singhvi also placed reliance on the Perarivalan case, where the Court directed the release of convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, after declaring that they are "deemed to have served the sentence", in view of the Governor's inaction on their remission applications.

"But these are individual matters. There could be different factual considerations," CJI Gavai said.

Singhvi said that if the State has to approach the Court every time the Governor refuses to act on the Bills, it will only add to the delay. "Case -to- case approach will not solve the problem. Articles 200 and 201 necessitate a general timeline. It can't be the lordships' intention that I keep coming back to the Court everytime," Singhvi said.

"What happens if the timeline is not followed?" Justice Nath asked.

"Your lordships' arms and ears are long and powerful enough to ensure that it is followed," Singhvi answered.

Justice Narasimha then weighed in : "We lay down the timeline, and then, my brother asked a very correct question, then what? If it is an administrative order which for non-compliance becomes invalid, what is to be done? Flexibility provided "as soon as possible" is a Constitutional norm. But when the matters go to the Court with somebody saying large time has already been taken, then it becomes an individual lis. There, the Court may exercise any kind of power. Even 142 power. But to say that we will set a timelimit is a difficult proposition."

Justice Narasimha pointed out that Article 200 only specified that the Governor must decide "as soon as possible". "Is that not good enough?," asked the Judge.  Singhvi said that the cases show that this generic mandate was not good enough.

CJI Gavai repeated his doubt regarding general timeline.  "In individual cases, the parties can go under Article 226 also. But laying down a timeline. There could be different exigencies, considerations, warranting a different timeline for different enactments. But providing a fixed timeline...".

Singhvi also cited the Constitution Bench Judgment in Anoop Baranwal case, where the Court directed that Election Commissioners must be appointed by a panel comprising the PM, Leader of Opposition and the CJI till the Parliament enacted a law. Singhvi said that this judgment was an example of the Court filling in the silences in the Constitution with a general direction to address a real-world malady. 

Singhvi said that in the context of Article 200, the Court should not be following a "case-by-case" approach. "The timeline object is to have a guidance to be adhered to. Assuming the timeline is not followed, the consequence attached to it is the deemed assent."

Justice Nath then asked if the Court declares deemed assent to a Bill, and if the Bill is later challenged before the Court, would there be a conflict of interest?  Singhvi said that while declaring deemed assent, the Court is not entering into the merits of the Bill.

"The question is whether a general timeline can be given under Article 142" CJI Gavai repeated the query before Singhvi concluded the submissions.

Live updates from the hearing can be followed here.

 Click Here To Read/Download Order