CAN SUPREME COURT IMPOSE TIME LIMIT UPON PRESIDENT OF INDIA OR GOVERNOR OF STATE FOR SIGNING BILL? DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS.
Background: The Legislature for the State of Tamil Nadu, between 13.01.2020 and 28.04.2023, enacted and forwarded 12 Bills to the Governor for the grant of assent as per Article 200 of the Constitution. Even though the present Governor took charge of the office with effect from 18.11.2021, he did not take the necessary action on any of the said Bills forwarded to his office till October 2023. The State of Tamil Nadu, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Governor, had to ultimately file the present writ petition before Court. The same was filed on 31.10.2023. The State Legislature, on 18.11.2023, convened a special session and repassed the 10 bills which were returned by the Governor after withholding of assent. The bills were passed without any material change and were forwarded to the Governor’s Secretariat on the same day for his assent in accordance with the first proviso to Article 200. This Court, in its order dated 20.11.2023, noted that since the re-passed 10 bills were pending with the Governor, the hearing of the writ petition be adjourned to 01.12.2023 and issued directions that this Court shall be apprised of the progress in the matter. On 28.11.2023, the Governor, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the State, in exercise of his discretion, reserved the said re-passed Bills for the consideration of the President. The letter of the Governor to the Union Government referring the said Bills for the consideration of the President mentioned that the Bills were re-considered and passed again by the State Legislature. Interestingly, although the Governor noted that the Bills were intra-vires the competence of the State Legislature having been legislated under Entry 66 of List I, Entry 32 of List II and Entry 25 of List III, yet he reserved the said Bills for the consideration of the President in the second round on the ground that the Bills suffered from repugnancy on account of being contrary to Entry 66 of the Union List i.e., List I. These grounds have been taken by the Governor to reserve the 10 Bills for consideration of the President. In the premises Chief Minister asked the Governor to (i) Recall the 10 Bills reserved for the consideration of the President and grant assent expeditiously;(ii) In future, grant assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature within 30 days and avoid unnecessary reservation of the bills for the consideration of the President; (iii) Act in accordance with the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers. Matter went up to the Supreme Court COMMENTS OF AUTHOR Before going into the details of the Judgement, it is not highlighted that even the state government of Tamil Nadu was playing mischief with provisions of the Constitution. Question arises, how? Article 200 of the Constitution provides that if the Bill is returned by the Governor, the State Assembly may re-pass the Bill with or without modification and the Governor cannot withhold the same. (The said Article text is given herein below) Here also, the State Assembly re-passed the Bills without any amendments and without implementing the suggestions […]
Read more