Supreme Court Orders 3-Month Time Limit for Assent to Bills by President and Governors
Why in News?
-
The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for Indian federalism and the relationship between state governments and the central government.
-
The decision challenges the Governor’s authority and limits the use of delays by governors as a political tool, setting a clear three-month deadline for assent to bills.
-
It has sparked debate over the judicial review of Presidential powers, potentially reshaping how federalism functions in India.
-
The Tamil Nadu case involving Governor Ravi’s refusal to assent to 10 bills draws attention to how federal power dynamics are playing out in the current political climate.
Important Key Points:
-
Supreme Court’s Decision:
-
The Supreme Court ruled that both the President and Governors must decide on bills passed by state legislatures within three months.
-
The decision came after Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to 10 bills, sparking a legal deadlock.
-
-
Judicial Review of Presidential Actions:
-
The Court asserted that the President’s actions related to bills are subject to judicial review, invoking Article 201 of the Constitution, which deals with bills reserved for the President’s consideration.
-
Judicial review now applies to the Presidential functions, which were previously considered beyond judicial oversight.
-
-
State’s Authority:
-
The Court stated that governors cannot reserve a bill for the President’s consideration after it has been repassed by the state legislature.
-
The ruling declared that the Governor’s delay in assent violated the principles outlined in the Punjab Governor’s case.
-
-
Use of Article 142:
-
The Supreme Court invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 to declare the 10 withheld bills as deemed to have been assented by the President, ensuring the state’s governance is not obstructed.
-
-
Federal Implications:
-
Constitutional experts, including Kapil Sibal, hailed the verdict as a boon for federalism.
-
Sibal criticized the delay by Governors as a tool of harassment by the Central government, asserting that the ruling limits unexplained delays in the assent process.
-
