What is apex court’s power if President, Governors sit on bills, asks SC

THe sublime margaret court on tues raised concerns o'er whether it is expected to remain powerless if the chairperson of India or governors indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by elected state legislatures for years.“Both houses of legislature have given approval… then why should the President or governor sit on it for an indefinite period of time? We appreciate that we cannot a fix timetable but if someone sits, will the court be powerless?” a Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai remarked, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent.The bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu’s Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court’s April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the President to decide on state bills pending before them.“Suppose a bill is passed in 2020... Will the court be powerless if there is no consent even in 2025?” the court asked on Tuesday. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who represented the Madhya Pradesh government, replied that such matters are best left to Parliament to decide. He added that the starting point of such discussions cannot be based on the presumption that discretionary powers given to the President or governors will be misused.Other senior counsel who argued on Tuesday, including those representing the states of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Goa, Chhattisgarh and Haryana, also supported Kaul’s view that the apex court should not have imposed deadlines on the President or state governors to decide on such matters.The presidential reference, prompted by the court’s April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor’s prolonged inaction was “illegal”.During the day-long hearing, Kaul argued that the Constitution grants wide discretion to governors and the President in granting assent to bills, and courts cannot impose timelines where none exist. He cautioned against presuming misuse and said such matters were best left to Parliament.Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the state of Maharashtra, submitted that the Union can prevent a state bill from becoming law under Article 201, calling it a matter of “higher discretion”. He said the governor’s withholding of assent is not a veto in the personal sense, and that assent need not automatically follow the passage of a bill. He also maintained that such high constitutional functions cannot be subjected to judicial review.Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, clarified that issues like withholding of assent to money bills do not arise, as such bills require prior gubernatorial recommendation.Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Rajasthan, argued that withholding assent was contemplated by the Constitution’s framers and that assent under Article 200 is part of the legislative process, not subject to mandamus.For the states of Uttar Pradesh and Odisha, additional solicitor general KM Nataraj contended that the President and governors enjoy absolute functional autonomy in such matters. ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, for Goa, said that the Constitution does not envisage “deemed assent”, which cannot be judicially created. Appearing for Chhattisgarh, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani said that imposing timelines on governors was “disrespectful” and Article 32 petitions were not a remedy against withholding assent.With these arguments, the bench concluded hearing the side supporting the reference. It will start hearing the other side on Wednesday.