Govt likely to file review petition on SC order on setting timeframe for Prez to decide on bills

New Delhi | The government is likely to file a review petition on the Supreme Court judgement setting a timeframe for the President and the governors to decide on giving assent to bills passed by state legislatures.

Sources aware of the development said that besides seeking a review of the timeline, the government may seek a review of the apex court's order that the state governments can directly approach it if the President withholds assent to a bill sent by a governor for consideration.

There are active considerations at the highest echelon of the government on the issue and, in all probability, a review petition will be filed in the Supreme Court, the sources said.

The grounds on which the review petition will be filed are being considered and will be known once the government approaches the apex court.

If the government approaches the Supreme Court, the review petition will have to be filed before the same bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan that pronounced the verdict, the sources said.

After the April 8 judgement, the Tamil Nadu government notified 10 pending bills as Acts in the government gazette, citing the Supreme Court's ruling that they were "deemed" to have received assent.

In its order, the Supreme Court has prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received.

This was in addition to the top court's nod to the 10 bills, which were stalled and reserved by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi for the president's consideration. The court set a timeline of one month for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies, according to the judgement running into 415 pages and uploaded on the apex court's website on Friday night.

"We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs... and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.

"In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State. The States are also required to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers to the queries which may be raised and consider the suggestions made by the central government expeditiously," the top court said.

The apex court set aside the reservations to the 10 bills for the President's consideration in the second round, holding it as illegal, and erroneous in law.

Without mincing words, the court said that "where the Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court".

The Supreme Court set timelines and said failure to comply with them would make the inaction of the governors subject to judicial review by the courts.

"In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President, upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such an action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one month," the court said.

Justice Pardiwala, writing the judgement for the bench, dealt and delivered findings on the judicial review of the exercise of power by the Governor under Article 200 and by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution.

Article 200 deals with situations related to the passage of bills by the state assembly and subsequent options available to the governor on the grant of assent or withholding of assent or sending the bill to the President for reconsideration.

Article 201 deals with the bills reserved for the President's consideration by the governor.

"There is no expressly specified time-limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time-limit, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon bills which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the law-making machinery in the State," the bench said.

The court referred to various situations and held that the actions of governors and the President regarding state legislation are subject to judicial scrutiny under certain circumstances.

"There is no 'pocket veto' or 'absolute veto' available to the President in discharge of his functions under Article 201. The use of the expression 'shall declare' makes it mandatory for the President to make a choice between the two options available under the substantive part of Article 201, that is, to either grant assent or to withhold assent to a bill.

"The constitutional scheme does not, in any manner, provide that a constitutional authority can exercise its powers under the Constitution arbitrarily," the bench said.