The Supreme Court has ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills passed by State legislatures, calling such delays unconstitutional. It imposed clear timelines on both Governors and the President, reinforcing federalism and ensuring legislative processes aren’t obstructed by political maneuvering.
Key Highlights Of The Verdict
Assent Procedure Clarified: Role of Article 200
- Governor’s Options Post-Legislative Approval: Article 200 allows a Governor to either grant assent, withhold assent and return the Bill, or reserve it for the President — except in the case of Money Bills which get automatic assent.
- Return of Bill Must Be Prompt: If a Governor withholds assent, the Bill must be sent back “as soon as possible” with suggestions for reconsideration. Once re-passed, assent becomes mandatory.
No Pocket Veto Permitted
- No Unlimited Delay: The court rejected the concept of a “pocket veto,” stating the Constitution’s language requires timely action and prohibits indefinite delays.
- Limited Power to Withhold Assent: Withholding assent is not a blanket power to reject legislation; using it to obstruct democratic decisions violates the principles of representative governance.
Limiting the Power to Reserve Bills for President
- Only in Exceptional Cases: Bills can be reserved for the President only if they seriously endanger constitutional mandates or are significantly altered in a second iteration.
- Political Motives Disallowed: The Governor cannot invoke Presidential reference due to personal or political reasons. Such discretion must be grounded in legal and constitutional threats.
Deadlines and Timelines
- Time Limits for Governor’s Decisions: The Governor must act within one month when withholding assent or referring a Bill. If returning a Bill contrary to Cabinet advice, it must be done within three months.
- Timelines for Reconsidered Bills: Once a Bill is re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor is obligated to provide assent within one month.
- Presidential Decision Time Frame: The President must decide on referred Bills within three months of receiving them, with reasons provided for any delay.
Judicial Oversight and Enforcement
- Subject to Judicial Review: Any delay or misuse of discretion by the Governor is open to judicial scrutiny to ensure accountability to the legislature and people.
- Use of Article 142: Invoking its extraordinary powers, the Supreme Court granted deemed assent to the 10 Tamil Nadu Bills, citing the Governor’s non-compliance with legal duties.
Broader Implications
- Strengthening Federalism: The ruling reinforces cooperative federalism by limiting the Governor’s discretion and preventing political obstruction of State legislation.
- Safeguard Against Assent Misuse: By recognising automatic assent where delays are unjustified, the court ensures that essential governance isn’t hindered.
Understanding Article 142 of the Indian Constitution
Introduction to Article 142
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950, grants the Supreme Court an inherent power to ensure “complete justice” in any pending matter before it. This provision empowers the Court to go beyond the strict letter of the law, if necessary, to uphold justice in individual cases.
Objective of Article 142
The core purpose of Article 142 is to allow the Supreme Court to pass any order or decree required to deliver complete justice. It acts as a constitutional safeguard, enabling the judiciary to bridge gaps where existing laws or procedures may fall short.
Key Provisions of Article 142
Clause (1)
Article 142(1) states that the Supreme Court, while exercising its jurisdiction, may issue any order or decree it deems necessary for ensuring complete justice in a case. Such orders or decrees are enforceable across the entire territory of India, in a manner prescribed by a law enacted by Parliament. Until such a law is framed, the President may prescribe the mode of enforcement through an order.
Clause (2)
Under Article 142(2), and subject to laws made by Parliament, the Supreme Court has the authority across India to take measures such as:
- Securing the attendance of individuals,
- Requiring the discovery or production of documents, and
- Investigating or punishing cases of contempt of court.
Scope and Application
Over time, Article 142 has primarily been used for two purposes:
- To ensure complete justice in specific cases.
- To fill legislative voids where existing laws are silent or inadequate, based on the Court’s interpretation.
Extraordinary Nature of Powers
Although the term “extraordinary powers” is not used in the text of the Constitution, Article 142 is widely regarded as granting such authority to the Supreme Court. It is invoked in exceptional situations where traditional legal remedies or statutes prove insufficient.
Debate on Judicial Overreach
The expansive nature of Article 142 has led to concerns regarding judicial overreach. Critics argue that excessive use of this provision could undermine the principle of separation of powers, allowing the judiciary to intrude into the domain of the legislature or executive.
A Tool for Checks and Balances
On the other hand, proponents view Article 142 as an essential mechanism for maintaining checks and balances within the democratic framework. It serves as a constitutional tool to prevent misuse of power by the executive or legislative arms of the government, ensuring that justice prevails even in complex or unprecedented situations.