First, SC fixed the timeline to get the governor to agree to the bill passed by the General Assembly
“Similarly, since the first essentially and non-static condition is related to the option of withholding consent, the Governor has no scope to declare a simple rejection, which means that, therefore, under Article 200, the absolute veto is also Article 200.”
The bench also stated that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the governor did not specify a time limit.
“A governor provided for in Article 200 of the Constitution does not have a clearly designated function. Although there is no specified time limit, Article 200 cannot read Article 200 in a way that allows the governor to not take action.
The bench also said it would set a one-to-three-month timetable for the governor to determine the fate of the bill that was cleared by the state legislature, keeping in mind the constitutional significance of Article 200, and its role in the country’s federal politics.
The judge warned: “Not complying with this timetable will put the court inaction by the governor who is under judicial scrutiny.” The bench said: “If the bill is to be considered with the aid of the State Council to consider the president, the Governor is expected to take such action immediately, up to one month.” The Supreme Court said that if contrary to the recommendation of the State Council, the governor must return the bill and a message within a maximum of three months.
It said that if the reservation bill is for consideration by the president, contrary to the recommendation of the state legislature, the governor should make such reservations for up to three months.
It said: “If a bill after reconsideration is conducted under the first clause of the first condition (article 200), the governor must immediately grant up to one month of consent.”
The judge noted that the use of “as soon as possible” shows that the Constitution has a sense of urgency for the governor and expects him to take action on expediently.
It said: “If he decides to declare his refusal to agree, the legal settlement position is that if there is no time limit for the exercise of power, the same time must be exercised within a reasonable period of time.”
The bench also stated that in the guidance of this Court’s decision in the AG Perarivalan case, the law is provided by law and that the court has the right to prescribe for the time limit for the exercise of any function or any power, which essentially requires expediency.
“The provision of the court to provide for general time limits in which the exercise of general powers that the governor must perform under Article 200 is not the same as amending the Constitutional text to read in time limits, thus fundamentally changing the procedural mechanism of Article 200.
It said: “In the plan of Article 200, such time limits for prescriptions are intended to determine determinable judicial standards to determine the reasonable exercise of such powers to reduce any arbitrary.”
It added that the guidance of the Court through the time limit for the exercise of power is an inherent nature of the procedure set forth in Article 200 of the provision.
The bench said: “The following timeline was prescribed, given the constitutional significance of Article 200 and its role in the federal system of the country.”
The Supreme Court said that as a general rule, governors who exercise their functions require that Article 200 governors must comply with the aid and recommendations made by the Council of Ministers.
It said: “Any exercise of discretion in the exercise of powers under Article 200 is subject to judicial review.”
The judgment is very important because several opposition-ruled countries, including Kerala, Punjab, Telangana and West Bengal, have filed a delay with the Supreme Court to delay the bill passed by the governor against the various state legislatures.
