Shortly after a five-judge Constitution bench responded to President Droupadi Murmu’s questions on the withholding of Bills and timelines, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said the bench had decided that the clarification would be “in the name of the court” and not a particular judge. He mentioned that this would amount to a “sacrifice” by one of the judges on the bench, who he said had contributed substantially to framing the answers to the President’s questions.
The top court today held that the President and Governors of states cannot be bound by timelines when it comes to approving Bills. A five-judge Constitution bench stressed that the actions of the President or Governors are not “justiciable” and judicial review can be invoked only when a Bill becomes a law.
This comes in response to President Droupadi Murmu’s questions to the top court following a two-judge bench’s verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case that effectively set a deadline for the President and Governors to clear Bills passed by the legislature.
Seeking the court’s opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President had asked, “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?”
The President had also asked if the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable.
The President cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office.
The bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai said the imposition of a timeline is “strictly contrary” to the Constitution. The other judges on the bench were Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice AS Chandurkar.
Thanking the bench after it read out its response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “On behalf of the honourable President of India and on our behalf, we express sincere gratitude for a very illuminating opinion of our lordships.”
The Chief Justice replied, “And I am extremely grateful to all my learned brothers, each of us who has contributed.” He added that one of the judges on the bench had contributed substantially to prepping the clarification and framing the court’s response to the President’s questions. “On principle, we have decided it would go in the name of the court,” he said.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal thanked the court for a “circumspect and thoughtful decision”. “And that it is unanimous makes us happier.”
The Chief Justice then said with a smile, “…in one voice, we wanted it to be the voice of the court. It required (a) sacrifice by one of us.” He was referring to the one judge who did the heavy-lifting behind the unanimous response. Solicitor General Mehta said, “I understand, milord, by each one of you.”
In today’s clarification, the court also struck down the arguments regarding ‘deemed assent’ made in the two-judge bench’s judgment. It said “deemed consent of the Governor, or President, under Article 200 or 201 at the expiry of a judicially set timeline, is virtually a takeover, and substitution, of the executive functions by the Judiciary, through judicial pronouncement, which is impermissible within the contours of our written Constitution”.