Presidential reference: Is the Supreme Court’s opinion a blow against federalism?

A 5-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has given its opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference. This Reference pertained to the discretionary powers of the Governor and the President. The Supreme Court said that no timelines can be fixed for Governors or the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. It also said there can be no ‘deemed assent’. But it added that in cases where the Governor’s inaction “is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite” there will be ‘limited judicial scrutiny”. This advisory opinion of the Supreme Court contradicts its own judgement of April 8, in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu & Union of India. In this case, the two-judge Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had held said that the Governor cannot exercise a “pocket veto” by indefinitely sitting on Bills, and they fixed a three-month timeline for them to act on the Bills. What happens to this judgement now? Former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai did clarify that the opinion given in a Presidential judgement did not overrule a judgement. Nonetheless, the question remains: given that a Supreme Court judgement declares the law, what happens to the April 8 judgement now? Does the Court’s ‘opinion’ mean that the Centre now enjoys a default ‘pocket veto’ on state laws? Does it mean Governors can sit on any Bill as long as they like, waiting for the state to go to court? Guest: Krishnadas Rajagopal, The Hindu’s Legal Correspondent. Host: G. Sampath Shot, produced, and edited by Jude Francis Weston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices