Constitutional Timelines for Presidential and Gubernatorial Actions on Bills

The Supreme Court (SC) constitution bench is examining whether it is within its authority to impose time limits on the President and Governors for acting on Bills passed by state legislatures. This inquiry stems from a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143(1) of the Constitution.

Judicial Orders and Constitutional Amendments

• The SC bench, led by CJI B R Gavai, discussed whether imposing such timelines essentially amounts to amending the Constitution.
• Justice Nath highlighted that the Constitution does not specify timelines and any such inclusion would necessitate a constitutional amendment.

The Role of Courts in Individual Cases

• Courts can address individual grievances without a mandated timeline, as suggested by CJI Gavai, allowing judicial discretion under Article 142 for complete justice.
• Justice Narasimha raised concerns about setting a uniform timeline for different scenarios, which might not be practical.

Arguments by Senior Advocate A M Singhvi

• Representing the Tamil Nadu government, Singhvi argued for the necessity of timelines in light of "contemporary realities" to avoid making constitutional provisions mere formalities.
• He suggested that "constitutional silences" permit the courts to fill gaps where public interest demands action, despite the absence of explicit timelines in Articles 200 and 201.

Division Bench Ruling and Its Implications

• The SC's Division Bench had reportedly ruled that the President should seek the court's opinion when a Governor reserves a Bill on grounds of unconstitutionality, which Singhvi clarified as non-mandatory.
• Singhvi emphasized that the President's referral to the court should be seen as optional and based on prudence, rather than mandatory.

Challenges of Implementing Fixed Timelines

• CJI Gavai noted that different Bills might necessitate different timelines, complicating the enforcement of fixed deadlines.
• Singhvi argued for a guideline-based approach, suggesting that non-adherence to timelines should result in deemed assent to the Bill.
• The concept of a "reasonable period" has been a constitutional mandate, yet has proven inadequate in practice, leading to the current debate.

Overall, the discussion underscores the complexity of balancing the flexibility required in legislative processes with the need to ensure timely executive action on legislative matters.