Supreme Court Clarifies Presidential and Gubernatorial Roles in State Bill Assent

Understanding the Supreme Court's Advisory Opinion on State Bills

The Supreme Court has recently provided a detailed advisory opinion concerning the constitutional powers of the President and Governors with respect to State Bills. This opinion, issued by a five-judge Bench, addresses the boundaries of judicial intervention by affirming that courts cannot impose deadlines or declare ‘deemed assent’ for these constitutional roles.

No Court-Imposed Timelines for Assent

The Bench emphasized that creating fixed timelines for the President or Governors to act on Bills would violate the principle of separation of powers. The Constitution, specifically under Articles 200 and 201, does not prescribe exact timelines for action. Introducing court-mandated deadlines would effectively alter the constitutional framework intended for these assents.

Judicial Review in Cases of Extreme Inaction

While courts cannot enforce time-bound actions, they may intervene in exceptional circumstances involving prolonged and unexplained inaction. In such rare cases, a limited mandamus may be issued to compel the Governor to fulfill their duty within a reasonable timeframe. This judicial power, however, is not intended to evaluate the merits of the decision itself.

Governor's Constitutional Options Explained

Under Article 200, a Governor has several options: they may grant assent, reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration, or withhold assent and return the Bill with comments, except in the case of Money Bills. The court highlighted that a Governor should not indefinitely hold a Bill without returning it, as such actions undermine legislative authority and the federal structure.

Notable Facts and Judicial Clarifications

This advisory opinion marks the 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143. The Bench comprised CJI BR Gavai, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar. The court rejected the notion of ‘deemed assent,’ labeling it unconstitutional. Assent decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are generally non-justiciable, except when reviewing extreme inaction.

Reaffirming the Separation of Powers

The court clarified its stance, stating it cannot evaluate the contents of a Bill before it becomes law nor can it compel the President to seek judicial advice on any reference made by a Governor. It underscored that the Governor's role involves discretion and is not strictly bound by ministerial advice. This opinion reinforces the balance between constitutional functionaries, ensuring that legislative processes are not hindered by indefinite delays.