NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, in its April 8 verdict, held that although it has fixed a timeline for Governors to give their assent or recommendations to bills passed by state assemblies, its directive did not amount to “judicial overreach”.
Pronouncing its order on the Tamil Nadu government’s plea against Governor R N Ravi for “sitting on” several bills passed by the Assembly, the Supreme Court noted that if the Governor withholds assent contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, he must return the bill, along with his recommendations, within a maximum period of three months.
If the Governor reserves the bill for the President’s consideration, he shall do so within a maximum period of three months. If a bill is presented after reconsideration, the Governor must grant assent forthwith, within a maximum period of one month.
The top court asserted that these timelines set on the discretionary powers of governors do not amount to a transgression of Article 200 of the Constitution or its framework but ensure that they are not rendered ineffective through indefinite delays.
“The prescription of a time limit is to ensure that the Governor is not conferred with the power of exercising a pocket veto under the scheme ofArticle 200, and hinder the law-making process in the State without any reasonable ground,” the court held.
Citing examples of laws in the US and Pakistan, the apex court said the Governor, in the exercise of his functions under Article 200, is required to abide by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers.
The court said it’s crucial to understand that the court’s prescription of a time limit, within which the ordinary exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 must take place, is not the same as amending the Constitution’s framework.
“The reason why these timelines do not immolate the very fabric of Article 200 is because the said provision... still remains markedly different from counterpart provisions where such time limits are legislatively prescribed,” the SC said.
Only in instances where the Governor is required to act in his discretion would he be justified in exercising powers under Article 200 contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers. The SC held that any exercise of discretion by the Governor under Article 200 is subject to judicial review.
