Supreme Court's Note On President, Governors, Bills Explained In 10 Points

In a critical moment Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court clarified that the President of India and Governors of states are not bound by timelines when clearing laws passed by state governments.

A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, who demits office Monday, was responding to a Presidential reference on its April 12 verdict. Then Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi acted in an "illegal" manner by withholding assent for bills passed by the state.

The court began its hearing in August but made it clear the April order will remain; the court said it was acting in an "advisory" role only. Today, the court said the actions of the President or a Governor are not 'justiciable', i.e., subject to trial, and judicial review can be invoked only after a bill becomes law.

READ | "Won't Overturn, Advisory Role Only...": Supreme Court On Presidential Reference

Here are 10 key points made by the court.

1. Timelines cannot be set for a Governor to clear, or return, bills under Article 200 of the Constitution, which says the Governor, when presented with a bill (which is not a Money Bill) must either assent, return, or pass it on to the President for further consideration.
2. Therefore, if a bill is withheld it must be returned to the state Legislature.
3. Contrary to earlier arguments, the Governor has discretion, i.e., they are not bound by the aid and advice of a Council of Ministers in signing off on, or withholding assent to bills.
4. And the discharge of their functions, as under Article 200, is not justiciable.
5. The court can issue limited directions to a Governor to decide on a bill - in a 'reasonable period of time' - but only if there is a 'prolonged, unexplained or indefinite inaction'.
6. Consequently, immunity under Article 361 - which shields them from legal proceedings for actions taken in their official capacity and in their term - will not shield them from directions to clear, or return, bills, within a 'reasonable time', in cases of prolonged delay.
7. Presidential assent, under Article 201, is not subject to judicially prescribed timelines and a President's actions, under the same context, is also not justiciable.
8. The President is not bound to seek the court's advice for each bill reserved for them.
9. The Constitution does not allow the concept of 'deemed Assent' for bills, which might then raise questions over the status of 10 'deemed to have been passed' in April.
10. Consequently, the court cannot use Article 142 to declare 'deemed assent' for bills.