Presidential Reference on Assent Timelines

GS2 – Polity

Context:

The President has invoked Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on the constitutional validity of judicially imposed timelines for granting assent to Bills, following the Court’s April 8 judgment. The Reference raises concerns over the interpretation of Articles 200, 201, and 142 in the context of executive powers and judicial overreach.

Background of the Reference

• In its April 8 ruling, the Supreme Court directed that the President must decide within three months on Bills reserved by Governors.
• The Court termed the reservation of 10 Bills by the Tamil Nadu Governor as illegal and allowed states to approach courts for writs directing the President to act.
• This prompted a 14-point Presidential Reference seeking clarity on the constitutional foundation of such judicial directives.

Key Constitutional Provisions Under Scrutiny

• Article 200:
  Empowers the Governor to assent, withhold assent, or reserve a Bill for the President—but does not specify a time frame for these actions.
• Article 201:
  Deals with the President’s decision on Bills reserved by Governors, but again, lacks a deadline for response.
• Article 361:
  Provides immunity to the President and Governors from legal proceedings during their term, raising questions about the extent of judicial review over their discretionary actions.
• Article 142:
  Allows the Supreme Court to pass orders to do “complete justice,” but its usage to override procedural gaps or constitutional silences is under debate.
• Article 145(3):
  Requires that substantial constitutional matters be heard by a minimum five-judge Bench—but recent two-judge Bench rulings on key constitutional issues have drawn criticism.
• Article 131:
  Grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in Centre-State disputes. The boundaries of this jurisdiction have become contentious in recent adjudications.

Significance of the Presidential Reference

• Clarifying Constitutional Boundaries:
  The Reference seeks judicial guidance on whether the President and Governors can be bound by timelines not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution under Articles 200 and 201.
• Ensuring Legal Consistency:
  Aims to reconcile conflicting precedents on whether executive actions in this domain are subject to judicial oversight.
• Challenging Judicial Doctrines:
  Questions the validity of the “deemed assent” concept introduced by the Court, which allows legislation to become law without formal assent after a time period.
• Testing Federalism and Separation of Powers:
  Highlights the tension between the judiciary and executive, and the limits of judicial intervention in the legislative process within India’s federal structure.
• Reflecting Centre-State Frictions:
  Brings attention to concerns over the alleged misuse of gubernatorial powers to stall legislation in Opposition-ruled states, thereby exposing deeper issues of governance and political imbalance.