‘Setting timelines poses constitutional dilemma’

The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised a constitutional dilemma ~ would prescribing timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills amount to judicially rewriting the Constitution, which only requires them to act “as soon as possible”?

- Utkarsh Anand

A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is hearing a presidential reference under Article 143. The reference arises from the top court's April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, which imposed a three-month deadline on governors and the President to decide on bills -- a judgment that has since triggered intense debate on whether such timelines alter the constitutional scheme.

On the sixth day of the hearing of the reference, the five-judge bench repeatedly pondered what remedy a constitutional court could adopt if the President or governors failed to comply with judicially fixed deadlines.

The bench pointed out that Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, dealing with gubernatorial and presidential assent, deliberately avoided fixing timelines. Article 200 lays down that when a bill is presented to the governor of a state, he or she may grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President, while Article 201 provides the President similar powers over bills reserved for consideration. Both articles use the phrase “as soon as possible” without prescribing any deadlines.