New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought the views of the Centre and state governments on whether courts can direct governors or the President to give assent to bills within a specified time frame. This follows a recent controversy involving Tamil Nadu, where Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to 10 bills passed by the state assembly.
In its written response, the Centre clarified that courts do not have the authority to impose deadlines on the President or governors for approving bills. The government expressed concerns that judicial intervention in such matters could create constitutional confusion. While acknowledging difficulties in obtaining assent from governors, the Centre emphasized that imposing deadlines would undermine the constitutional stature of these offices. It added that any issues in their functioning should be addressed through constitutional mechanisms, not judicial directives.
The Supreme Court has noted that bills sent by state governments must be approved or returned by the President or governor within a maximum of three months. However, delays by governors may bring the matter within judicial review, with the apex court exercising its powers under Article 142. President Droupadi Murmu responded, stating that the Constitution does not provide for fixing deadlines for assent and questioned the basis for such judicial orders.
The court’s notices to the Centre and state governments aim to clarify the scope of judicial authority in this matter. The Centre has reiterated that it does not support courts setting deadlines for the assent of governors or the President.