Supreme Court holds that timelines cannot be fixed for the grant of assent for Bills by Governor :::: "... imposition of a timeline is strictly contrary" ::::: But Governor has "discretion" in choosing from three options

 Supreme Court says - 

The three clear options a #Governor has is to either grant assent, withold assent and return to #legislature with comment or refer it to #President. He has discretion in choosing any of this three options.  

No timeline for Governors to clear bills, but long delay can invite review

-- Supreme Court

CJI: "When a Governor chooses not to act, the constitutional courts can exercise judicial review. We can issue a limited direction to the Governor to act without observing anything on merit.

Chief Justice of India, Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai

said -- 

"The imposition of timeline would be strictly contrary to this  elasticity that Constitution so carefully preserves. The concept of deemed assent presupposes that one authority.

(Setting aside its earlier ruling that required Governors and the President to decide on state bills within three months, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai held that courts cannot impose rigid timelines on constitutional authorities.)

"...That is the court can play another substitutional role for another authority.. that usurpation of gubernatorial powers of governor or president is antithetical to the spirit of the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. 

"Concept of deemed assent is takeover of powers of another authority and article 142 cannot be used for the same."  

CJI further said:

"Governor has no option for withholding simplicter. 

"Therefore, he has three options: assent, reserve for president, or return to the assembly. Discretion is in respect to exercising three options. On timelimits, and deemed assent

"Articles 200 and 201 are framed to allow elasticity. The imposition of a timeline is strictly contrary. 

The concept of deemed assent presuppose that constitutional authority would place a substitute role for the role of the governor- its antithetical to the separation of powers. we have no hesitation in concluding that deemed assent is virtually a takeover of functions of a constitutional authority!   

"We hold that the court in state of Tamil Nadu was bound by earlier decisions and discharge of functions by president and governor under article 200 and 201 is justiciable. 

The drastic consequence of the judgment will be that bills would be reviewed here before it becomes a law. Peoples will expressed is only definitive and final."

                                               Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai

"Thus we find no reason to deviate from the earlier precedents of this court. The discharge of functions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable by president and governor. Judicial review and scrutiny can be involved only when bills becomes law.

"It is unfathomable to suggest bills can be brought to court rather than being opined on under Article 143 as referred by the president under advisory jurisdiction. 

"President need not seek advice of this court everytime when bills are referred to him. 

If the President needs an option advisory jurisdiction under article 143 always lie".  

The Bench ruled

"... the court in Tamil Nadu was bound by the earlier decision, and discharge of functions of the governor. It is not justiciable. The most drastic concept is that assent can be challenged by any population at the stage of bill. 

Discharge of governor or president function not justiciable. 

Judicial review can be invoked only when the bill has become a law. 

We also clarify that the President is not bound to seek review when the Bill is reserved by the Governor under Article 200. 

If in extraneous consideration, the President wants to seek, it can. 

However, the consequent question that arises is what redressal lies when the Governor does not assent- 

while merits of action can't be looked into by the Court, unaction prolonged, undefinite, without reason will invite limited judicial scrutiny!

CJI: not all cases will lead to the court giving directions. It will depend on appropriate circumstances.

summary:

1. Governor has 3 constitutional otpions- assent, reserve for president, withhold and return the Bill to assembly. 

2. Governor exercise discretion in exercising three options. 

3. Discharge of function is not justiciable. court can't enter into merits. But prolonged, unexplained, or indefinite delay, the court can issue limited discretion. 

4. Absolute bar on judicial review. But in case of prolonged inaction, the constitutional court can exercise. constitutional office 

5. Not appropriate to judicially prescribe timelines for Governor or President. 

6. President not to seek advise under Article 143 everytime Governor reserves Bill for President. 

7. Decision of President and Governor not justiciable at the stage of Bill. 

8. Powers of Governor and President can't be substituted using Article 142. No question of deemed assent. 

9. Assent of Governor can't be supplanted by the Court.