Editorial: Supreme Court’s balancing act to restore constitutional harmony

With its nuanced stance on timelines for assent to Bills, India's top court has upheld separation-of-powers boundaries

Dispelling the criticism over perceived judicial overreach, the Supreme Court has struck a delicate balance on the issue of fixing timelines for Governors and the President to act on legislative Bills sent to them for approval. The Constitutional Bench of the apex court has made it clear that courts cannot prescribe hard deadlines for Governors or the President to act on Bills, nor can they invent a doctrine of “deemed assent” or compel the President to seek the court’s opinion on such legislation. At the same time, the five-judge Bench held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay Bills passed by the legislatures, as India’s cooperative federalism requires dialogue with elected Houses rather than obstruction. The SC has allowed an elbow room for judicial intervention in cases where there are ‘glaring circumstances of prolonged and unexplained inaction’. There will be ‘limited judicial scrutiny’ for indefinite’ delay in granting assent to Bills, and the courts may still issue directions to the Governor, the Bench ruled. By this nuanced ruling, the top court has sought to respect the boundaries within the framework of the separation of powers. The latest verdict will hopefully settle the dispute that arose following the Supreme Court’s own judgment in April this year on Tamil Nadu government’s petition, where a two-judge Bench — invoking the sweeping powers of Article 142 — held Governor RN Ravi’s withholding of 10 Bills as “illegal and arbitrary” and went on to fix deadlines for Governors and even the President to act on Bills.

Governors were given one month and the President three months to make decisions, and if these deadlines were not met, the court granted “deemed assent”. The ruling was seen as conflicting with Articles 200 and 201, which outline the constitutional functions of Governors and the President with respect to Bills passed by State legislatures. These provisions do not allow courts to supervise constitutional discretion. It was seen as an instance of judicial overreach, disturbing the delicate federal balance. In May this year, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 to refer 14 key questions to the Supreme Court. At the heart of her reference was a pointed question: can courts impose timelines on the President or Governors when the Constitution does not? The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, who retired recently, has now restored constitutional balance. In its opinion on the Presidential Reference, the Bench ruled that under Article 200, a Governor has only three options: grant assent, return the Bill with objections, or reserve it for the President. And, the courts cannot examine the merits of these decisions. However, judicial intervention is permitted only when there is prolonged, unexplained, or mala fide inaction. The checks and balances in the democratic set-up are essential to uphold the spirit of federalism. Reconciliation and balance, and not obstructionism, form the essence of constitutional order.

---