Governors can’t sit over Bills endlessly: SC judges , Pg1

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court is hearing a Presidential Reference regarding the time limits for Governors to assent to Bills.
• Justices emphasized that Governors cannot indefinitely delay legislative decisions or obstruct the Constitution's function.
• Tamil Nadu and West Bengal argued that Governors should not act like royalty and must collaborate, not combat, with the states.
• A two-judge bench previously set a three-month deadline for deciding on Bills, with "deemed assent" if delayed, but doubts were raised about this.

Detailed Insights:

• The Presidential Reference was triggered by delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in assenting to 10 State Bills since 2020.
• Arguments were made against granting Governors absolute power to withhold State Bills under Article 200, as it could lead to absurdity.
• The court questioned the practicality of imposing general time limits on the President and Governors and the concept of "deemed assent".
• The court suggested that time limits could be prescribed in individual cases based on their specific circumstances.
• Concerns were raised that a general timeline for all cases of delay might be an overreach by the judiciary.
• It was argued that a Governor cannot simply choose to do nothing and impair the legislative process.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 200: Deals with the Governor's power to assent, withhold assent, or reserve a bill for the President's consideration.
• Presidential Reference: The power of the President of India to consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact.
• Deemed Assent: A legal provision where a bill is considered to have received assent if no action is taken within a specified time.