Should court be powerless if Governor does not assent to a 2020 bill even in 2025? Supreme Court asks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated concerns over whether it is expected to hold off on taking any action if the President of India or State Governors indefinitely withhold granting assent to Bills passed by elected State Legislatures for years. .The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu to the top court under Article 143 of the Constitution.The reference has questioned the Court's April ruling that prescribed timelines for the President and the Governor to decide on Bills."Suppose a bill is passed in 2020... Will the court be powerless if there is no consent even in 2025?" the Court asked today. .Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who represented the Madhya Pradesh government, replied that such matters are best left to the parliament to decide. He added that the starting point of such discussions cannot be hinged on a presumption that there will be a misuse of the discretionary powers given to the President or Governors.Other senior counsel who argued today, including those representing the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Goa, Chhattisgarh and Haryana, also supported Kaul's view that the apex court should not have imposed deadlines on the President or State Governors to decide on such matters..The April ruling in focus was rendered by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. In that verdict, the apex court held that Governors must act within a reasonable time and that constitutional silence could not be used to stall the democratic process.The Court held that although Article 200 does not specify any time limit, it cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite delay by the Governor in acting on Bills passed by the State legislature.With regard to the President’s powers under Article 201, the Court held that her decision-making is not beyond judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months. If there is any delay beyond that period, reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned State, it had said.Following the ruling, the President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court, raising concern over the judgment's interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. Among the questions referred are whether the Supreme Court can create procedural mechanisms in areas where the Constitution is silent, and whether imposing time limits encroaches upon the discretionary space constitutionally granted to the President and Governors..Arguments today.Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, today highlighted the discretion provided to Governor and the President by the Constitution on clearance of bills."As far as timelines are concerned, it is impossible to say within this time the Governor or President must decided," he added.On the scope of judicial review in relation to bills, Kaul said,"Where there are no justiciable standards for a certain action, it will not be susceptible to judicial process. No one is saying power of judicial review is not implicit but there will be certain powers which will not have justiciability aligned to them."He added that Court cannot lay down timelines and then make the process reviewable by the judiciary..However, CJI Gavai asked that why the Governor should be permitted to sit on a bill for an indefinite period of time when two houses of a State legislature have passed it.In response, Kaul said it was best to leave the issue to be decided by the parliament."The starting point of this debate can't be there is vacuum. It can't be a presumption that there will be misuse," he added..Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, argued that the framers of the Constitution have created a system in which the Union government can prevent a bill passed by a State assembly from becoming a law. However, he said it is a matter of higher discretion. "The language of [Article] 201 does not admit to any such limitation [against veto]," he added. "Using the word 'veto' would be an uncharitable characterization... Yes, he has the power to withhold ... Veto is a word we use for personal interest and the Governor does not have so," he further said..CJI Gavai asked whether the Union government can use such a power even when the bill falls under List 2 (State List). Salve responded in the affirmative.At this stage, CJI Gavai referred to BR Ambedkar's speech in which he had said that the Union government would work within the spheres allotted to it, except in case of an emergency..Justice Narasimha remarked that if a Governor at the threshold can withhold a bill, he can then even withhold a money bill. Salve said the Governor can do so. .Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the question does not arise as a money bill is introduced with the recommendation of the Governor under Article 207. Adding to it, Salve said,"If the bill undergoes discussion on the floor of the house...and goes through amendments...the Governor may withhold assent."Salve contended that the notion of 'assent must follow' after a bill is passed is wrong. "It is not a feature of Indian federalism that an assent must follow after a few rounds of confabulations. We have a limited federalism with the hope that all these functionaries will act with wisdom," he said.Salve also said that the Governor is the channel of communication between the Union and States."It would be hard to believe that in a serious matter brewing between the two, Governor withholds a bill. The Union would have no role to play. This is how Constitution works," he added.Salve went on to submit that the Court can delineate the powers but the exercise of that power by a high-constitutional power cannot be subjected to judicial review."When there are no condition precedent, then the question is how will judicial review will apply. There is no way that without making Governor answerable that you can judge why a particular bill was withheld by the Governor," he added.Moreover, Salve contended that the Court can ask the Governor about his decision but not why he has taken a particular decision..Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for State of Rajasthan, said even the Constitution makers envisaged that the Governor could withhold assent at the threshold. Singh also argued that assent under Article 200 has been held to be a legislative act."Governor being part of the legislative process.. thus no occasion of issuing mandamus," he added..Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the States of Uttar Pradesh and Orissa, argued that the President and the Governor enjoy absolute functional autonomy. Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, for the State of Goa, said the judiciary cannot sit in a position where it givse deemed assent for bills. "Constitution does not envisage a concept of deemed assent and thus the same cannot be included by judicial fiat," he added.Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, submitted that it was almost disrespectful to set timelines for the Governors. He also contended that Article 32 petitions would not be a remedy against withholding of the assent..Senior Advocate Vinay Navre too argued that Governors can withhold assent to State bills. "Please see Article 253. Even if it is a State subject, Governor has the power to withhold. Assembly may be under some compulsion or compelling situation. Then what do we do? Governor by not assenting maintains the balance," he said.Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar added, "If someone moves the Court (raising the question of) how long is too long for the Governor not to act? In what circumstances, would court draw a line ?(Courts have held that) there can be no mandamus to legislate. Now, can Court say three months have gone by, that was enough time for the (Governor) to exercise his discretion?".Previous hearingsOn August 19, the Court heard arguments on maintainability of the reference. On merits, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani questioned the Supreme Court's April ruling, asking whether the Court can re-write the Constitution. He submitted that top court in the verdict had looked at the President as an "ordinary statutory authority".On August 20, the Court observed that if a Governor is allowed to permanently withhold assent to the bills passed by State legislature, it would leave the elected State government at the whims and fancies of an unelected Governor.In the following hearing on August 21, the Court asked whether it should act helpless when a Governor sits over a bill passed by a legislature for years.