Back
Disposes Punjab's Plea Against Governor Reserving Bills For President's Assent
The on Friday disposed of a filed by the State of Punjab that challenged the Governor's decision to reserve two Bills for the President's consideration, after the State informed the bench that the President had refused assent to one Bill and sent queries on the other. The disposal, recorded as , came with the express liberty to Punjab to initiate fresh proceedings if a arises.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter. , appearing for Punjab, submitted that the had been returned without assent, while queries had been forwarded regarding the . The State was in the process of responding to those queries and sought an adjournment of two weeks, indicating that it would press the petition if the survived.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose after the Governor of Punjab, acting under , reserved two Bills passed by the for the consideration of the President. The State Government, aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the President in granting or refusing assent within a , approached the under . The petition sought a declaration of to both Bills, relying on the 's judgment in the , which laid down timelines for Governors and the President in dealing with Bills.
The two Bills at the center of the controversy were the and the . Both had been passed by the Punjab Legislature but were not given effect due to the Governor's decision to reserve them for the President's consideration. The State argued that the Governor's action was unconstitutional and that the prolonged delay in the President's decision amounted to a .
Court's Observations and Disposal
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out that the issue of timelines for assent to Bills was now governed by
Bench judgment on the
. The bench noted that the period for considering the Bill would restart from the date on which the queries were sent to the State. Consequently, Justice Bagchi observed that
"the delay is no longer there."
The Chief Justice questioned why the Court should keep the petition pending when the had been effectively resolved by the President's actions. Senior Advocate Farasat then requested the Court to record his statement that Punjab would approach the Court again if a arose. The bench agreed and disposed of the as , while granting liberty to Punjab to initiate fresh proceedings if required.
The Court did not delve into the merits of the underlying constitutional questions, leaving them open for a future challenge if the need arises.
Legal Implications
The disposal underscores the significance of Bench judgment that clarified the timelines for the President and Governors in dealing with Bills reserved for consideration. While the six-month deadline for assent was no longer applicable, the judgment established that a Governor who withholds assent must return the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration, and the President must act within a .
In this case, the President's refusal of assent to the Punjab Police Bill and the raising of queries on the Sikh Gurudwaras Bill demonstrated that the constitutional process had run its course, albeit with a delay. The Court's refusal to keep the petition pending reflects a pragmatic approach: once the President has taken a decision—whether by refusing assent or by seeking clarifications—the cause for a declaration of dissipates.
For legal practitioners, the case reinforces the principle that the remedy of under Article 200 and is not automatic; it requires a clear showing of inaction. The Court's willingness to grant liberty to approach again ensures that the State is not left without a remedy if the President or Governor fails to act on the queries or further delays the process.
Impact on Centre-State Relations
The dispute is emblematic of the ongoing friction between state governments and governors appointed by the Centre. The 's decision to invoke highlights the growing trend of states challenging gubernatorial actions in the . The had already set important benchmarks, and the present disposal does little to resolve the underlying tensions.
By leaving the constitutional questions undecided, the Court has deferred a definitive ruling on whether a Governor can indefinitely reserve Bills or whether the President's inaction can be treated as . The liberty granted to Punjab means that the issue may return to the Court if the queries on the Sikh Gurudwaras Bill are not addressed in a timely manner.
Conclusion
The 's disposal of Punjab's petition brings a temporary end to the legal battle over the two Bills, but the underlying issues of gubernatorial discretion and the President's role in the legislative process remain unresolved. The State has been given the opportunity to revive its challenge if fresh cause arises, ensuring that the constitutional dialogue continues. For now, the Court has signaled that once the President has acted—even by refusing assent or raising queries—the petition becomes .
The case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between state autonomy and central oversight, and the crucial role of the judiciary in mediating that balance. Legal professionals will watch closely for any fresh proceedings that may bring these constitutional questions back before the apex court.
