The Supreme Court has ruled that it is inappropriate for the judiciary to set specific deadlines for the President and state Governors to approve or reject bills passed by legislative bodies. A five-judge Constitution bench clarified that while Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills, imposing mandatory timelines would infringe upon the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The apex court emphasized that the actions of the President or Governors in this regard are generally not subject to judicial review until a bill has become law. The Court also stated that its broad powers under Article 142 cannot be invoked to grant ‘deemed assent’ to bills, effectively bypassing the constitutional authorities. This ruling came in response to a presidential reference seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on the matter. The bench acknowledged that Governors typically have three options: grant assent, send the bill back for reconsideration, or refer it to the President. The Court stressed that imposing rigid timelines contradicts the inherent flexibility of the Indian Constitution. It also cautioned against the judiciary ‘taking over functions of constitutional authority’ by previously granting deemed assent in certain cases, reinforcing that a Governor’s power under Article 200 is not directly justiciable.
.jpeg "Featured Image")
