In 2021, Appavu, P. Wilson demanded setting of time limit for Governors to give assent to Bills

M. Appavu
| Photo Credit: A. Shaikmohideen

Chennai

In a historic move on Tuesday, the Supreme Court fixed maximum time limits of one to three months for Governors to take a call on Bills. Interestingly as early as in 2021, Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker M. Appavu and DMK Rajya Sabha Member P. Wilson had raised this demand to put an end to Governors indefinitely sitting on legislations passed by the House.

Participating in the 82^nd All India Presiding Officers Conference in Shimla in November 2021, Mr. Appavu had cited Governors sitting on the Bills passed by the Assembly and called for setting a binding time frame for the Constitutional Head of State to decide on any Bill.

“When a Bill is passed by the majority and sent for assent, the Governors sometimes sit on it without giving his assent or returning the Bill for an indefinite period, even though the Constitution requires it to be done as soon as possible,” the Speaker had pointed out. “Even when a Bill is required to be reserved for the consideration of the President, Governors are taking months together, thereby eroding the authority of the legislatures,” he had said.

“The Governors, though heads of the State Executive, are appointed by the Union government. Therefore, when they stall giving assent to a Bill, they are virtually overruling the will of the people of the State. We have to work together to set a binding time frame within which Bills have to be assented to, returned or reserved for the consideration of the President by the Governors,” he added.

In Rajya Sabha

In December that year, Mr. Wilson had taken up this demand in the Rajya Sabha. He had called for amending the Constitution to fix time limits for Governors to act on Bills. Mr. Wilson, a senior advocate who had a key role in the case filed before the Supreme Court by the Tamil Nadu government, had argued in the Upper House that it should be inferred that the Constitution places a “fiduciary duty” on the Governor “to act within a reasonable time frame.”

P. Wilson
| Photo Credit:
R. Ragu

Contending that undue delay by constitutional functionaries in discharging their duties is ex-facie unconstitutional, he had pointed out, “The Governor ultimately owes a responsibility to the people on whose behalf and for whose welfare, the Legislatures, which carry the people’s mandate, enact laws.”

Another aspect, which Mr. Appavu highlighted at the Shimla conference, was that the President should provide reasons for withholding assent and returning a Bill passed by the Assembly.

“When a Bill passed by the State is reserved for the consideration of the President, and if the President withholds the assent and returns the Bill, should the President not give reasons? How will the House know what is the real impediment to the withholding of the assent?,” the Speaker had asked. He said the House reflected the will of the people. Therefore, withholding assent to a Bill “amounted to rejection of the will of the people of that State.”

Mr. Appavu felt if the House was made aware of the reasons, it could enact another Bill correcting the shortfalls that caused the President to withhold assent.