SC says Governors cant delay state bills indefinitely, but rejects fixed timelines for assent

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by state Assemblies. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai pronounced the judgment on President Droupadi Murmus reference under Article 143(1). We don't think governors have unfettered power to sit over bills passed by state assemblies, the bench observed. In India's cooperative federalism, Governors must adopt a dialogue process to iron out differences with the House over a Bill and not adopt an obstructionist approach, the five-judge Constitution bench said. The court held that the Governor has discretion while deciding to grant assent to bills under Article 200 and need not act as per the aid and advice of the Cabinet in assenting to bills. However, if the Governor withholds assent, the Bill must necessarily be returned to the Legislature. Reading out the operative part, Chief Justice Gavai held that timelines cannot be fixed for the grant of assent by the Governor. The bench added that the concept of deemed assent is against the spirit of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. The court clarified that while the Governor cannot be made personally liable for his decisions, constitutional courts can scrutinise them. No time limit can be imposed by the court except directing the Governor to take a decision within a reasonable period. The Role of president in protecting the constitution is binding on the union as a cohesive unit is crucial. President will be unable to excercise this option unless the governor reserves the bill for his assent. It is unlikely that the council of ministers will advise the governor to return the bill or refer it to President. It is unfathomable to hold that governor is not empowered with discretion under article 200, the bench stated. The verdict was delivered by the Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar after the court had reserved judgment on September 11 following a 10-day hearing involving the Centre, several states and other parties. The case arose after President Murmu, exercising her rare power under Article 143(1) on May 13, sought the courts opinion on whether fixed timelines could be imposed on Governors and the President for granting assent to state bills, effectively challenging an earlier April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench that had prescribed specific deadlines.