New Delhi: In a sharp exchange during Tuesday’s hearing, the Supreme Court questioned Tamil Nadu’s plea that it should grant “deemed assent” to bills delayed by governors. A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai, asked whether such a move could open the door to the Court effectively stepping into the role of governors.
“If we can do this, why can’t we step into the governor’s shoes to order a bill’s return to the legislature or reserve it for the President’s consideration?” the bench — comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar — remarked.
Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior advocate A M Singhvi argued that governors holding back bills without reason subverts the constitutional scheme. He urged the Court to fix a timeline for governors to act on pending bills, suggesting deemed assent as a safeguard if deadlines were ignored.
Cautioning against the proposal, Justice Nath noted that Article 200 provides governors four distinct options: granting assent, withholding assent, returning a bill with suggestions, or reserving it for the President. “If the SC can grant deemed assent, what prevents it from exercising the other options?” he asked.
Singhvi pressed on, warning that governors who indefinitely delay bills effectively wield a “pocket veto,” undermining elected governments and “becoming a super CM.” He argued that the Court had previously imposed timelines on Speakers under the anti-defection law and could similarly act in this case.
CJI Gavai, however, recalled that in the Telangana case, Singhvi himself had argued against imposing timelines on Speakers. “We rejected that argument and directed the Speaker to decide within three months. Yet, we did not fix a general timeline for all Speakers, leaving it to Parliament to consider reforms,” the CJI observed.
When Singhvi cited examples of governors sitting over bills for years, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta intervened, warning that such an approach could “take us down a dirty path.” He said he was prepared to file an affidavit listing instances since Independence where constitutional provisions were allegedly misused.
The bench clarified that it would not be guided by examples from individual states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, or Karnataka. “We will deal with the Presidential Reference constitutionally and answer the queries on their own merit,” CJI Gavai said.
The hearing will continue on Wednesday.
