Judiciary cannot tie President, Governor to timelines: Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court (SC) stated that the judiciary cannot set “one-size-fits-all” timetables for the President and Governors to dispose of State Bills (under Articles 200 and 201).
- The concept of ‘deemed consent’ (where a Bill is assumed to be passed after a court-ordered time frame) is considered unconstitutional by the SC.
- Implementing ‘deemed consent’ would usurp the constitutional functions of the President and Governor.
- Such usurpation is deemed “antithetical” to the Constitution and specifically violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- While rejecting deemed consent, the SC cautioned that President and Governors should not delay Bills indefinitely through “prolonged and evasive inaction.
- The ruling responds to a 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143, which sought clarity after the SC’s April 8 judgment that had imposed a 3-month limit.
- The 14 questions in the Reference were termed a “functional reference” involving day-to-day constitutional functioning between legislatures, Governors, and the President.
- The court stated it has the “institutional responsibility” to clarify “general questions of law” and “iron out constitutional creases” through this “functional reference.”
- Governor’s Options (Article 200)
- Three Options Clarified: The court confirmed that a Governor has three constitutional options under Article 200:
- Grant assent to the Bill.
- Reserve it for the consideration of the President.
- Withhold assent and return the Bill to the State Legislature with comments (if it is not a Money Bill).
- A Governor cannot simply withhold a Bill indefinitely without returning it with reasons.
- Judicial review cannot assess the merits of a Governor’s decision, but courts may issue a limited mandamus if there is prolonged, unexplained, indefinite inaction.
- Governors enjoy personal immunity from court proceedings under Article 361.
- Imposing uniform timelines on Governors/President is unconstitutional because Bills differ in complexity and the Constitution prescribes no schedule.
- The President need not consult the SC on every Bill reserved under Article 143; consultation is discretionary.
- Courts cannot review or adjudicate the contents of a Bill before it becomes law; legislative will becomes final only after gubernatorial or presidential assent.
HC Ends Interim Bail Practice in Premature Release Cases
- Madras High Court ends long-standing practice of granting interim bail to convicts awaiting the State government’s decision on premature release.
- Court rules that only the government can grant both premature release and suspension of sentence, not the judiciary.
- Bench questioned the legality of the interim-bail practice that existed since 2016.
- As per Section 473 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and TN Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, only the State government can act.
- The judges stressed that the State government cannot “shirk its responsibility” by simply giving a ‘no objection’ to courts granting interim bail.
- Directed the government to handle such pleas in a time-bound manner.
