'No timelines, no deemed assent for bills'

SC says as per Constitution, President not required to seek apex court advice every time a bill is reserved by Governor

- SUCHITRA KALYAN MOHANTY

ANSWERING a reference from President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that it cannot impose timelines on the President or Governors for granting assent to bills under Articles 200 and 201.

The SC said the idea of declaring “deemed assent” when such timelines are crossed runs counter to the Constitution’s spirit and violates the separation of powers, amounting to the judiciary taking over functions reserved for the Governor. The reference placed 14 questions, which the SC answered. Here are key questions and answers from the SC.

What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution?

The SC clarified that under Article 200, the Governor has only three options upon receiving a Bill: assent, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President. Importantly, withholding assent is inseparably linked to the requirement of returning the Bill to the Assembly under the first proviso to Article 200. The proviso is not a fourth, standalone option but a qualification of the power to withhold assent. Therefore, if the Governor chooses to withhold assent, the Bill must be sent back to the Assembly. Allowing a Governor to withhold a Bill indefinitely without returning it would undermine federalism.