Blow to States: On the Supreme Court and State Bills
Supreme Court should have upheld timelines for Governors and President
The Court did rule that withholding assent must be followed by returning the Bill to the Assembly. But the judgment rules that even if the Assembly passes the Bill a second time, the Governor retains the option to reserve it for the President. This kills the binding nature of the legislature’s second passage. Consequently, whether at first instance or after reconsideration, a Governor can refer a Bill to the President under Article 200. Once there, Bills can languish indefinitely as the judgment ruled that the President has no obligation to consult the Court. The Assembly has no recourse to re-pass Bills in a binding manner, and the judgment provides no guidance on when referring a Bill to the President is appropriate. While the judgment talks of a “limited mandamus” for prolonged inaction, it refuses to define what constitutes a “reasonable period of time”, forcing States into legal battles to prove delay. By removing procedural safeguards (timelines and deemed assent), extraordinary remedies (Article 142), and oversight (judicial review of actions under Article 200), the Court’s opinion has allowed the possibility of executive overreach. States have little mechanism to challenge arbitrary delays, no automatic approval after reasonable periods, and no remedy when Bills are referred to the President, even on subjects under the State List. And these are situations that have recently transpired in many Opposition-ruled States. The Court appears to have found a way to turn the letter against the spirit of the Constitution.