The Supreme Court delivered a major judgment on Thursday, ruling that the President of India and state Governors cannot be bound by any fixed timeline to approve or return bills passed by state legislatures. The court said imposing time limits is not supported by the Constitution.
Court Says Their Actions Are Not Justiciable Before a Bill Becomes Law
A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, stated that the actions of the President or Governors while dealing with bills are not open to judicial review. Courts can intervene only after a bill becomes a law. The bench also included Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice AS Chandurkar.
Judgment Given After President Seeks Clarification
The ruling came after President Droupadi Murmu sought the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution. She raised concerns about a previous two-judge bench decision in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which had effectively set a deadline for the President and Governors to act on bills.
The President had specifically asked whether a Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while using options provided under Article 200. She also referred to Article 361, which provides immunity to the President and Governors from being answerable to courts for actions taken in office.
Court Says Time Limits Would Violate the Constitution
In its judgment, the Supreme Court said that forcing the President or Governors to follow time-bound rules would be “strictly contrary” to the Constitution. The bench emphasized that the Constitution does not prescribe any specific period within which they must clear bills, and the judiciary cannot create such deadlines.
