Supreme Court Ruling on Governor's Assent to Bills
The Supreme Court has ruled that a Governor cannot arbitrarily withhold assent to bills, establishing timelines for action in such cases. This decision aims to prevent the stifling of the democratic process of law-making.
Key Points from the Ruling
- The ruling was delivered by a two-judge bench led by Justice J B Pardiwala.
- The Court extended scrutiny to the President's role in the law-making process, setting a three-month timeline for the President to clear bills reserved by the Governor.
- States can seek a writ of mandamus against the President if a decision is not made within the prescribed time limit.
- The ruling has sparked concerns about the Court potentially overstepping boundaries.
Background and Context
- The ruling comes amidst tensions in Opposition-ruled states over interactions between elected governments and centrally appointed Governors.
- The case involved Tamil Nadu, where Governor R N Ravi failed to act on 12 bills, prompting the state to seek the Supreme Court's intervention in 2023.
- Governor Ravi referred some bills to the President after the Court's initial directive, which was viewed as a tactic to delay proceedings.
Constitutional and Political Implications
- Questions arise over Article 361, which protects the President's office, and the separation of powers.
- The Court's decision to rule on the constitutionality of a Bill under Article 143 challenges traditional boundaries in the separation of powers.
- The issue is fundamentally political, differing from the U.S. Supreme Court's approach of avoiding political questions.
Considerations and Recommendations
- The Court must be mindful of unintended consequences and uphold the separation of powers with wisdom and sobriety.
- The Centre and the office of the President should avoid being drawn into political conflicts between governments and opposition.
- There may be a need for the Supreme Court to revisit aspects of its ruling to maintain balance.