Timelines set on bills extend to Prez office: SC in 415-page order

The Supreme Court, in its comprehensive 415-page judgment made public late on Friday, firmly established its authority to review constitutional functions while revealing that its prescribed timelines for decisions on state bills extend to the President's office as well.

- 

"It is clear as a noon day, that no exercise of power under the Constitution is beyond the pale of judicial review," the bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stated in the full verdict, that was delivered on Tuesday in the case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor RN Ravi's handling of 10 bills, some of which had been pending for over two years.

According to the full ruling, the specific timelines apply not just to governors but also to the President to act on state legislation - a first in Indian constitutional history. The court's intervention addresses what it described as a "growing and dangerous" trend of governors creating political roadblocks to frustrate state governments, especially when different political parties control the state and central governments.

Kerala governor Rajendra Arlekar became the first governor to publicly question the verdict in an interview published by HT on Saturday. Arlekar alleged the ruling was a case of "judicial overreach" and contended that the matter should have been decided by Parliament or referred to a larger bench.

The court held that such a measure balances the need for expedient decision-making with the right of states in a federal system to fulfil their mandate to voters. It emphasised that governors must act on the advice of their council of ministers and that they have no discretionary powers under Article 200.

The order contained specific justification of the court's authority, defending its prescription of timelines as a careful balancing act. "The prescription of timelines by us balances the objective of expediency as well as the desirability of having some flexibility in cases of existence of an impossibility in discharge of functions in an expeditious manner," the bench stated.