A five-member Constitution bench, presiding over a presidential reference seeking Supreme Court‘s views on whether it could lay down timelines and procedures for the president and governors, verbally remarked that certain instances of delay in granting assent to bills cannot justify the laying down of a blanket timeline for governors and the president.
The bench orally observed that if there are individual cases of delay, the aggrieved state governments can approach the court to seek relief and the high courts/SC may direct that the decision should be taken within a time limit. However, the bench added it cannot mean that the court should lay down a general timeline for the governors and the president to decide on bills. This was orally remarked by the bench during the resumed hearing of the presidential reference and arguments raised by the Tamil Nadu government opposing the reference.
Appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued in support of a division bench’s April ruling that laid down timelines for governors for grant of their assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
The bench observed that the Constitution has specifically provided for “flexibility” by saying that the bills be returned “as soon as possible” without specifying any time limits.
The bench asked what would happen if the governor and the President did not follow the timeline set by the top court in its April ruling. It also questioned whether the court could grant deemed assent for bills not acted upon by the governor.
The bench made it clear that its decision in the case would not be influenced by which political dispensation is in power or was previously in power. “Our decision is not data based. Our decision will be based on interpretation of the Constitution,” it observed.
The observation came from the bench after Singhvi and solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued over the submission of details regarding instances where governors had withheld assent to bills.
CJI BR Gavai asked the sparring counsels to desist from going into facts and restrict the arguments only to the interpretation of the Constitution. The bench made it clear that it would “not allow this platform to be converted into political battles”. The CJI wondered “whether the court can lay down a straitjacket formula for governors?”
