In a first, the Supreme Court of India has permitted judicial intervention if Governors delay assent to legislative bills for an extended period. The apex court bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, noted that the President must take a decision within three months on bills referred by governors. The April 8 judgement was made in response to the Tamil Nadu government versus Governor case. According to a The Hindu report, the MHA is likely to file a review petition against the SC judgement.
The SC bench said, “…governor does not hold the power to exercise ‘absolute veto’ on any bill, we see no reason why the same standard would also not apply to the President under Article 201 as well. The President is not an exception to this default rule which permeates throughout our Constitution. Such unbridled powers cannot be said to remain in either of these constitutional posts.”
The Supreme Court passed the judgement in response to a November 2023 petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the State’s Governor indefinitely withholding assent to ten Bills passed by the State Assembly, some as early as 2020.
Let’s take a detailed look
SC Sets Deadline for President, Governor to Grant Assent to a Bill
The Supreme Court judgement settling the dispute between Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and the ruling DMK government over the clearing of Bills — while laying down a specific timeframe for the President and Governor to act in such cases — seeks to give itself a toehold in the law-making process.
The SC prescribed a three-month timeline for the President to decide on Bills referred by the Governor.
The Supreme Court invoked Article 143, in noting that the President of India ‘ought’ to seek the apex court’s opinion.
“It is expected that the Union executive should not assume the role of the courts in determining the vires of a bill and should, as a matter of practice, refer such question to the Supreme Court under Article 143”, SC noted.
“We have no qualms in stating that the hands of the executive are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill and only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill.” SC bench added.
What is Article 143?
Article 143 of the Indian Constitution grants the President of India the authority to seek advisory opinions from the Supreme Court on matters of law or fact that are of significant public importance. Under Clause (1), the President may refer such questions to the Supreme Court, which can provide its opinion after necessary hearings. Additionally, Clause (2) allows the President to refer disputes under Article 131 for the Court’s opinion. However, the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is discretionary, meaning it may choose not to provide an opinion in certain cases.
The apex court also noted that it’s not mandatory for the government to accept its opinion.
“We are of the considered view that although the option to refer a Bill to this Court under Article 143 may not be mandatory, yet the President, as a measure of prudence, ought to seek an opinion under the said provision in respect of Bills that have been reserved for the consideration of the President on grounds of perceived unconstitutionality.”
MHA Likely To File Review Petition
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is likely to file a review petition against the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgement allowing judicial intervention if Governors withhold assent to legislative Bills for too long.
Tamil Nadu Govt vs Governor
The dispute between Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and Governor RN Ravi over state bills culminated in a historic Supreme Court verdict. The Governor had withheld assent to ten bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 2020, twice returning them and later referring them to the President for consideration.
The Supreme Court intervened, ruling that the Governor’s actions were “erroneous and illegal,” as he could not reserve bills for the President’s consideration after denying assent the first time and the bills being re-passed by the Assembly.
The Court ordered the bills to be deemed laws from the date they were re-presented to the Governor, effectively bypassing the need for his or the President’s assent.
The SC decision was hailed by MK Stalin as a “historic victory” for state governments.
About The Author
