New Delhi: Court weighs limits of judicial authority
The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued hearing the Presidential Reference on whether timelines can be prescribed for Governors and the President while granting assent to bills. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, is examining whether the judiciary can mandate deadlines or create the concept of “deemed assent” when no decision is made within a set period.
The Reference was sent by President Droupadi Murmu following the Court’s April verdict that attempted to streamline delays in bill assent. The advisory opinion being considered will clarify the constitutional position but will not be binding.
Isolated delays versus blanket rules
The Bench noted that while there have been instances where Governors delayed decisions on bills, such isolated delays may not justify blanket timelines applicable across all states. Judges expressed concern that imposing uniform deadlines could amount to judicial law-making and effectively alter the Constitution without parliamentary approval.
Separation of powers in focus
One of the key issues raised was whether the judiciary can assume roles that belong exclusively to the executive. The Bench observed that if courts can declare “deemed assent” due to inaction, they might then be asked to take on other gubernatorial functions such as withholding or reserving bills. This, the judges cautioned, could blur the line between judicial and executive authority.
Concerns about unchecked discretion
The Court also reflected on the danger of granting unlimited discretion to Governors. If constitutional heads are allowed to indefinitely delay assent, elected state governments could effectively be paralysed. Judges asked whether such inaction would undermine the democratic process, especially since Governors are not directly accountable to the people.
Advisory nature of the proceedings
The Bench reminded all parties that the Court is acting under Article 143 of the Constitution, which allows it to provide the President with advisory opinions. This is not an appellate process, nor a review of previous judgments, but a clarification to guide future governance.
Implications for federal democracy
The outcome of this hearing has significant implications. On one hand, it could protect the independence of Governors and the President as constitutional authorities. On the other, it must ensure that elected state legislatures are not rendered powerless by prolonged delays.
Balancing these competing considerations, the Court appeared cautious about overstepping its mandate, while still acknowledging the need to safeguard democratic governance from abuse of discretion.