PTI
New Delhi
For the first time, the Supreme Court has prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.
Four days after the top court cleared 10 bills, which were stalled and reserved by Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for the President’s consideration, and set a timeline for all Governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies, the judgement running into 415 pages was uploaded on the apex court’s website at 10.54 pm on Friday.
“We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the ministry of home affairs… and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.
“In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned state. The states are also required to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers to the queries.
“The queries may be raised and consider the suggestions made by the central government expeditiously,” the top court said.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for the President’s consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law.
The top court also said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration.
The court referred to various situations and held the actions of Governors and the President regarding state legislation are subject to judicial scrutiny under certain circumstances.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the state government to assail such an action before this Court,” the verdict said.
It emphasised that the constitutional powers vested in the Governor under Article 200 and in the President under Article 201 cannot be exercised arbitrarily or without accountability.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the state council of ministers, it shall be open to the state government to assail such an action before the appropriate High Court or this Court,” it said.
Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the Governor to give assent to the bills presented to him, withhold the assent or to reserve it for the consideration of the President.
“The bills, having been pending with the Governor for an unduly long period of time, and the Governor having acted with clear lack of bona fides in reserving the bills for the consideration of the President, immediately after the pronouncement of the decision of this court in state of Punjab (supra), are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were presented to him after being reconsidered.
“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,” the bench said in its judgement.
Observing that the Governor is required to abide by the aid and advice tendered by the council of ministers, the top court said it is not open for the Governor to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President once it is presented to him in the second round, after having been returned to the House previously.
The bench directed the registry to send a copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts and the principal secretaries to the Governors of all states.
The apex court set timelines and said failure to comply with it would make the inaction of the Governors subject to judicial review by the courts.
