NEW DELHI: Observing that bills if kept pending after their passage by state legislature militate against the very sustenance of a representative democracy based on direct elections, Supreme Court has ruled that neither the President nor governors have “unbridled powers” and neither of them has the power to exercise ‘absolute veto’ on any bill passed by the assembly.
It said the constitutional functionaries have to take decisions in a time-bound manner and fixed it at three months for the President.
Clearing the constitutional ambiguity over the role of the constitutional head of the country and those of states when bills are sent for their assent, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the authorities have to pass a reasoned order and cannot sit indefinitely on bills. It said delay on their part as well as decisions taken by them are judicially reviewable and can be challenged in court.
Settling a timeline for governors, it said a decision has to be taken within a month if assent is granted or within three months if a bill is referred to the President or to assembly for reconsideration. SC also accepted Centre’s 2016 office memorandum fixing a timeline of three months for the President to take a decision, and made it a part of its order.
“… the scheme under which the constitutional heads of both the country and a state respectively are required to operate, does not contemplate the idea of an ‘absolute veto’, thereby meaning that there can be no withholding of assent without furnishing reasons. This is owing to the fact that the simpliciter withholding of assent both by President and governor would be impermissible within the fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy,” SC said.
Elaborating on Article 200 (pertaining to governors) and Article 201 (regarding President) of the Constitution, it said both the functionaries are bound to give reasons in writing for withholding assent and the state govt must not be prevented from incorporating the changes or amendments to the bill. Though a governor is bound to give assent in case the assembly sends the bill again after reconsideration, the bench said it was not applicable to the President.
It said the President giving reasons in support of decision is of paramount importance, and the court can make a presumption that the President and by extension, the central govt, may not have acted in a bona fide manner if the decision is not a reasoned one.
The 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.”
SC suggested the President invoke Article 143 of the Constitution to seek SC’s opinion in case a state bill’s constitutionality is questioned. “… 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. This is all the more necessary as there is no mechanism at the state level for the governor to refer bills to the constitutional courts for their advice or opinion thereupon,” SC said.
About The Author
