The apex court set timelines and said failure to comply with it would make the inaction of the governors subject to judicial review by the courts.”In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President, upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such an action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one month,” the court said.”In case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three months.””In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months,” the bench said.In case of presentation of a bill after reconsideration, the governor must grant assent forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month, the court said.The bench said that the governor could not sit over bills and adopt the concept of “absolute veto” or “pocket veto”.”There is no ‘pocket veto’ or ‘absolute veto’ available to the President in discharge of his functions under Article 201. The use of the expression ‘shall declare’ makes it mandatory for the President to make a choice between the two options available under the substantive part of Article 201, that is, to either grant assent or to withhold assent to a bill.””The constitutional scheme does not, in any manner, provide that a constitutional authority can exercise its powers under the Constitution arbitrarily,” the bench said.
Source link
