On the sixth day of hearings in the Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court remarked that occasional delays in granting assent to Bills cannot justify the framing of a rigid time limit for Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, was examining submissions by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, reported LiveLaw.
Representing the State of Tamil Nadu, Singhvi defended the three-month deadline fixed earlier by a two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, stressing that such limits are necessary “in view of the repeated instances of Governors withholding Bills indefinitely.”
According to the report, the court, however, voiced concern. CJI Gavai reportedly asked: “Can we lay down a straightjacket formula under Article 142 for exercising of the power of the President and the Governor?” He stressed that while relief can be granted in individual matters, it would not be appropriate for the Court to impose a general timeline.
Justice Vikram Nath observed that a fixed timeline would effectively amount to constitutional amendment. “We will have to amend the Constitution to impose the timelines,” he said. Both Justices Nath and Narasimha probed the implications of non-compliance, questioning whether Governors or the President could face contempt of court.
In reply, Singhvi suggested that “deemed assent” could serve as the consequence. He urged the bench not to adopt an “ivory-tower view” but to deal with the “contemporaneous realities of huge delay.”
Singhvi contended that without a general direction, States would be compelled to repeatedly approach the Court, adding to the problem. “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 argued.
The bench also responded when Singhvi referred to a recent three-judge bench judgment, authored by CJI Gavai. CJI Gavai distinguished the court’s order in the Telangana case, where the Speaker was directed to decide disqualification petitions within three months. “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,” he clarified.
Singhvi invoked the Perarivalan case, where inaction by the Governor led to the court directing release of the convicts. But CJI Gavai countered: “These are individual matters. There could be different factual considerations.”
Justice Narasimha highlighted the difficulty of imposing a blanket rule, saying: “Flexibility provided ‘as soon as possible’ is a Constitutional norm. But when the matters go to the court with somebody saying a large amount of time has already been taken, then it becomes an individual list. There, the court may exercise any kind of power. Even 142 power. But to say that we will set a time limit is a difficult proposition.”
Questioning the sufficiency of constitutional wording, Justice Narasimha asked: “Article 200 only specified that the Governor must decide ‘as soon as possible.’ Is that not good enough?” Singhvi responded that real world experience showed such a mandate was “not good enough.”
According to LiveLaw, the CJI Gavai said that 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,” he has been quoted as saying.
The State’s counsel also cited the Anoop Baranwal case, in which the court devised an interim mechanism for appointment of Election Commissioners. The court had said that Election Commissioners must be appointed by a panel comprising the PM, Leader of Opposition and the CJI till the Parliament enacted a law.
He argued that this was an example of the Court filling constitutional silences.
According to the report, Singhvi said that in the context of Article 200, the court should not be following a "case-by-case" approach. He said that “the timeline object is to have guidance to be adhered to. Assuming the timeline is not followed, the consequence attached to it is the deemed assent.”
Justice Nath pressed further: “What happens if the timeline is not followed?” To this, Singhvi replied: “Your lordships' arms and ears are long and powerful enough to ensure that it is followed.”
According to the report, Justice Nath also 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 reportedly said that while declaring deemed assent, the court is not entering into the merits of the Bill.
Before Singhvi concluded, CJI Gavai once again emphasised his concern: “The question is whether a general timeline can be given under Article 142”.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
