US EditionGovernors Can’t Stall State Bills, but Courts Can’t Set Timelines for Assent by President: Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court ruled that Governors and the President cannot have timelines set for acting on bills passed by legislatures, as stated by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai.
- Governors have three constitutional options: assent, return the bill, or refer it to the President, according to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that prolonged inaction could lead to judicial review, but without making observations on the merits of the Governors' discretion.
- The court rejected the concept of 'deemed assent,' asserting it would undermine the separation of powers.
15 Articles
15 Articles
Supreme Court Says It Can't Fix Timelines For Governor And President To Grant Assent To Bills
In a landmark opinion on a Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court of India has unanimously held that it cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors or the President for granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The court also decisively rejected the concept of “deemed assent,” calling it a judicial takeover of executive functions and “antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution.” The ruling was delivered by a …
Governors can’t stall state bills, but courts can’t set timelines for assent by President: Supreme Court
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court held that the directions in its April 8 judgment that set timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures are incorrect and against the Constitution and separation of powers.
Can't impose timelines on Governors for bills, says Supreme Court, with a rider
The Supreme Court said that Governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely, even as it was not in favour of fixed timelines for granting assent. While highlighting the separation of powers, the court said prolonged delays in clearing Bills could still be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Prez reference: Constitution does not allow deemed assent of bills, says SC
New Delhi, Nov 20 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday said deemed consent of the governor or the president on bills at the expiry of a judicially set timeline is virtually a "takeover and substitution" of the executive functions by the judiciary, which is impermissible. It said the concept of deemed assent of pending bills by the court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 is virtually a takeover of the role and function of a separate co…
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 80% of the sources lean Right
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
