Only relaxed timeline, but governors cannot hold a bill indefinitely: Outgoing CJI Gavai defends verdict

OUtgoing Chief justness of bharat BR Gavai on lord's day said that the solar apex margaret court gave a balanced verdict by doing away with the timelines for governors and the President on bills, as the Constitution does not permit it, and at the same time holding that governors cannot sit over the bills indefinitely.In a candid conversation with media persons at his official residence, Justice Gavai said that the Constitution rests on the principle of separation of powers and does not permit the court to read timelines where none exist.He is leaving office on November 23, Sunday. Friday was his last working day in the Supreme Court.“We have not only relaxed the timeline, but we also balanced it by saying that the governor cannot sit over the bill for an endless time,” the outgoing CJI said.Responding to criticism that he diluted timelines for governors’ decisions on bills, he said, “The Constitution does not permit the court to read timelines where none exist. But we have said the governor cannot sit indefinitely. Judicial review is available in extreme delays.”He cited the "separation of powers" and maintained that while a governor "cannot sit over the bill for endless time" and a limited judicial review is available, the judiciary cannot read something into the Constitution that "isn't there”.On November 20, the apex court refused to accept the preliminary objections raised by opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala to the maintainability of Presidential Reference, saying the issues raised in it pertain to the very core and foundational modalities of the constitutional machinery.In its unanimous verdict, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said the unique nature of the advisory jurisdiction of this court lies in its institutional character and the "power to interpret the Constitution, nay, the duty to interpret it for the benefit of the Republic and its constituents, is exclusively vested with the judiciary".Underlining that there could be many factors that prevent the governor from deciding on a bill at a particular time, CJI Gavai said that the constitution rests on the principle of separation of powers, and the power to make laws lies with the legislature.He, however, refused to comment on the Judge Yashwant Verma matter, saying that the issue is currently before the Parliamentary Committee.Justice Verma landed in controversy after a fire incident at his residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse.Speaking on the independence of the judiciary, Justice Gavai asserted that it is significant in terms of maintaining public trust and for ensuring this, the collegium system of judges appointing judges should remain.“Independence of judiciary, as has always been said, if you want the public to have complete trust in the judiciary, independence has to be maintained,” he said.He said that in contemporary jurisprudence, a judge is called "independent only if the decision is given against the government", calling it an incorrect approach.“Unless you decide against the government, you are not an independent judge. That's not correct for a judge. You don't decide as to whether the litigant is the government or a private citizen. You decide as per the papers before you,” he said.“In any case the government may succeed or lose. But the thinking in some quarters that unless you decide everything against the government, you are not an independent judge, is not a correct approach,” CJI Gavai added.