What happens if Governor does not comply? Supreme Court on timelines for assent to laws

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed a doubt over its power and decision to establish timelines for Governors and the President regarding their power to assent to bills passed by State legislatures..The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing the 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.The Court today asked what would happen if the Governor and the President does not follow the timeline set by the top court."Then ... has to amend the Constitution basically to incorporate these timelines in 200, 201," Justice Nath said.The Court also questioned whether Court can grant deemed assent for bills not acted upon by the Governor."This Court can just get into the shoes of the Governor and consider all three options he [Governor] has...?" Justice Nath asked..The top court is currently hearing President's reference in relation to a judgment passed 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 Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, today continued his arguments. He argued that killing of bill is available only to the cabinet and nobody else."It can't be a by Governor. Your lordship will have no scheme of Constitution left (if that is allowed)," he added.Singhvi also argued for judicial review of Governors' inaction and said the that courts are wise enough to know about a no-go area."Courts are smart enough to know which is a no-go area and where they can intervene. These are self imposed limitations," he submitted.If Governors and President are exempt from judicial review, then their jurisdiction of power is stretched beyond limits, he added.Singhvi further contended that a Governor cannot be the final arbiter of a bill."Governor cannot withhold assent, kill a bill or be a judge in this. He is not the final arbiter or the 'Super Chief Minister'. Ultimately, alleged unconstitutional bills are passed everyday and courts will decide that. Even if majority introduced it, courts will see it.. that is separation of powers," he said..Singhvi also defended the timelines for Governors and President. At this, CJI Gavai said there could be different factual considerations in different cases and asked how can there be a same timeline for all bills. Singhvi said that case-to-case basis will not solve the problem. He added that States cannot keep coming back to Court when Governor refuses to give assent.However, the Court expressed doubt over the Court's power to fix timelines for the Governor. What happens if the timelines are not followed, Justices Nath and Narasimha asked.Singhvi argued that Article 200’s structure is amenable to timelines. "There has to be an amendment to the Constitution of course, that’s the ideal thing. In Manipur, Telangana .... the Court had to intervene. My lord recognises that despite no constitutional amendment, this Court can fix timelines. If a bill-by-bill approach us followed in Article 200, then the object of putting a timeline will be defeated," he added. Singhvi went on to argue that there has to be a consequence attached to inaction despite timelines. 'And that is deemed assent. It could be contempt," he said..However, CJI Gavai observed that the timeline for decision by President appears to be "imposing". He highlighted that every week, courts receive letters from district courts for extension of time to complete the trials."They say they can’t conclude it. The Governor is to take a decision within a reasonable period," he added. On similar lines, Justice Nath went on to question the rationale behind the declaration of deemed assent by Court."Why only deemed assent? This court can just get into the shoes of the Governor and consider all three options he has," the top court judge asked."Coming to timelines, if one does not stick to timeline then deemed assent will be given by the court. So this court will be part of the legislative process?," he added.Justice Nath added that individual cases can always be examined. "You come here. The court will examine the bill and take a decision," he said.Singhvi responded by pointing out that that was how these cases were born since such delays by Governors were repetitive. "Your lordships are not on an ivory tower...It takes minimum of a year (to decide an Article 32 plea). What’s the point then? And in case of Article 226, it is 3 years. The Governor then has 3 years. Then the Governor becomes a pocket veto, a super Chief Minister and then timeline has no effect all," Singhvi said. .Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal government, submitted that the Centre's argument was that sovereign act of the legislature need not be implemented. "So for the first time in the history of constitutional law in this country, your lordships would hold that the will of the people need not be implemented because the Governor chooses to withhold it. It is a proposition which is unacceptable," Sibal argued. He added that executive at any stage has no legislative power. He further said that the President and Governors are to act on the aid and advice of council of ministers."Your lordships sitting in this Court has to ensure that you interpret the Constitution to ensure that it works and not that it does not work. Not that the Governor says, I will not allow this to go forward. No principle of constitutional law allows a breakdown of constitutional machinery. There is no such principle of constitutional law," Sibal said..Supreme Court says its decision in case on Governors' powers will not depend on political party in power.Sibal also argued the Governor cannot reject or withhold the bill or return it. Overriding will of legislature is anathema to the Constitution, he added.Addressing the judges directly, the senior counsel said,"The Constitution is rooted in history but aligned with the future and who decides the future of this country... it is you five... It is you who will decide the future of this country in relation to powers of Governor etc.".On August 19, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani had questioned the Supreme Court's April ruling, asking whether the Court can re-write the Constitution. He submitted that the top court in the verdict had looked at the President as an "ordinary statutory authority".On August 20, the Court had 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 had asked whether it should be helpless when a Governor stalls a bill for years. On August 26, the Court made similar observations. Tamil Nadu government on August 28 argued that accepting that the Governors can withhold assent even to money bills passed by a State legislature would effectively make them a "super Chief Minister" of a State. Today, the Court said that its decision on the Presidential reference concerning the Governors' powers over the bills passed by the State legislatures would not be influenced by which political party is currently in power or was previously in power.Read live updates from today's hearing here. .[Read Live Coverage]