If we can clear delayed bills, why not perform other guv functions: SC

NEW DELHI: In a sharp reaction to Tamil Nadu's defence of Supreme Court granting deemed assent to bills delayed by governors, a five-judge apex court bench on Tuesday asked - "if we can do this, why can't we step into the governor's shoes to order a bill's return to the legislature and also reserve it for President's consideration?"

For TN, senior advocate A M Singhvi told a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar that given the numerous instances of governors in states sitting over bills indefinitely to subvert the spirit of paramountcy of people which undergirds the Constitution, the apex court should lay down a general timeline for all governors on taking decision on bills.

Singhvi: Keeping bills pending without any reason by guv is distortion of constitutional scheme of governance

CJI Gavai and Justice Nath asked, “If governors do not comply with the SC-fixed timeline, what would be the consequence?”

Singhvi said then SC should make a provision for deemed assent — to consider the bill to have been assented to — to avoid exercising contempt of court powers.

Cautioning that Singhvi’s argument can have dangerous implications, Justice Nath told the senior lawyer that Article 200 gives four options to a governor — to grant assent to a bill, withhold assent, return it to legislature with suggestions, and reserve it for President’s consideration.

“If SC can grant deemed assent to long-pending bills, what prevents it from stepping into a governor’s shoes to exercise the options,” he asked.

Singhvi, however, pressed on and sought to justify his arguments by saying that keeping bills pending without any reason by a governor is a distortion of the constitutional scheme of governance and is being repeated state after state.

“SC judges are not sitting in ivory towers. They know the ground reality. When bills are kept pending for years and when the governor’s action cannot be questioned in a constitutional court, then the governor arrogates himself with unfettered power to kill a bill, and with it the will of the people, by simply keeping it pending. He, thus, becomes a super CM with a pocket veto, and the elected govt would be a mere bystander,” he said.

Singhvi argued that SC has time and again fixed timelines for speakers to decide pending petitions seeking disqualification of MLAs under the Tenth Schedule.

CJI Gavai said, “In the Telangana case, it was Singhvi who had argued that SC cannot fix a timeline for speakers. We rejected that argument and asked the speaker, who acts as a tribunal in dealing with petitions under the anti-defection law, to decide it within three months.”

Recalling the July 31 judgment authored by him, CJI Gavai said, “Yet, we did not fix a general timeline for all speakers to decide such cases. We left it to Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting speakers with the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defection or not?”

When senior advocate Singhvi proceeded to cite examples of governors sitting over the bills for years, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said, “If he wants to give such examples it will be taking a dirty path. I have no objection and I am ready to charter that path also. I will file an affidavit showing how the Constitution was taken on a joy ride since Independence. Do we want to go that path?”

The CJI-led bench said, “We will not be guided by what governors did in individual states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala or Karnataka. We will deal with the Presidential Reference constitutionally and answer the queries on their own merit.”

The arguments will continue Wednesday.