New Delhi: The President is the highest constitutional functionary, and the Constitution framers have never said anything about time taken by him or her for giving assent to a bill, said former Supreme Court judge Ajay Rastogi on Saturday, underlining the need for deeper study of the provisions of Article 200 that expects Governors to approve bills ‘as soon as possible’.
Calling for a healthy debate on Supreme Court’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu bills’ delay matter, Justice Rastogi told IANS: “I feel Constitution framers said that we are conscious, for governor… not for President, that every constitutional authority will exercise its power expeditious and fulfil the mandate of the Constitution, but they still said ‘as soon as possible’ and did not set a time frame.”
“Why did the Constitution framers say ‘as soon as possible’ for governors?” asked Justice Rastogi, suggesting that the spirit and essence of the Constitution framers’ decision to do so needs to be respected and valued.
Justice Rastogi’s observations hold significance amid a debate, sparked by the SC verdict on Tamil Nadu bills, on the question if it is proper for the top court to set a three-month deadline for assent to bills sent by the legislature.
The critics alleged that the verdict ended up bringing even the actions of the President, the highest Constitutional functionary, under judicial review and setting a deadline for his or her decision-making.
Reacting to adverse comments on the apex court’s verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, Justice Rastogi said that there is a need to weigh in the reason why the framers of Constitution said that Governors may take a decision on bills ‘as soon as possible’.
He said the Constitution framers probably felt that it was not required to say anything about the President’s decision-making, but for Governors they did so.
Referring to the three-month deadline set by the apex court for approving bills, Justice Rastogi said the court’s verdict is in the public domain. “Let people express their views and even the court may further clarify if it finds it is required,” he said.
In the Tamil Nadu case, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, earlier this month, set aside Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 pending bills.
While deciding the Tamil Nadu deadlock in favour of the DMK-led state government, Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan used the court’s inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for the purpose of declaring the 10 withheld bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature on November 18, 2023.
(IANS)
