Supreme Court Review on Governor’s Role in Assent to State Bills

Governor’s Role Latest News

• The Supreme Court is examining a Presidential reference on whether timelines can be fixed for Governors and the President in giving assent to State Bills, amid debates over Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

Introduction

• The Supreme Court of India is currently examining a crucial constitutional reference concerning the role of Governors in the legislative process of States. 
• The issue revolves around whether fixed timelines should be mandated for Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills passed by State legislatures. 
• This matter has significant implications for Centre-State relations and India’s federal framework, especially at a time when multiple States have accused Governors of deliberately delaying assent to Bills, thereby obstructing governance.

‹ ›

The Role of Governors in Assent to Bills

• Under Article 200 of the Constitution, when a Bill is passed by a State legislature, it is presented to the Governor for assent. The Governor has the following options:
  • Grant assent to the Bill.
  • Withhold assent.
  • Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
  • Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) with a message for reconsideration.
• If the Bill is again passed by the legislature, the Governor is constitutionally bound to give assent. 
• However, the Constitution does not prescribe any timeframe for the Governor’s decision, leading to controversies where Governors have sat on Bills indefinitely.
• Similarly, Article 201 governs the President’s assent when a Bill is reserved for consideration. Even here, no timeline exists for the President to act, which sometimes results in prolonged delays.

Debate on Fixing Timelines

• The absence of clear timelines has become a major flashpoint in Centre-State relations. 
• Several States, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana, have complained of Governors withholding or delaying assent to Bills, thus stalling key reforms.
• The Supreme Court, while hearing the reference, is considering whether judicially enforceable timelines can be set to prevent such delays. 
• Proponents argue that indefinite inaction by Governors violates the spirit of parliamentary democracy and undermines the functioning of elected governments.
• On the other hand, critics caution that imposing strict timelines may constrain the discretionary powers vested in Governors and the President, potentially upsetting the delicate constitutional balance.

Background of the Case

• The matter reached the Supreme Court through a Presidential Reference under Article 143, following disputes raised by multiple States. 
• The Union government has argued that Governors act within their constitutional role and that delays may sometimes be due to the need for greater scrutiny or consultation with the Centre.
• However, the Supreme Court in earlier cases, such as Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) and Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), has emphasised that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in a few exceptional circumstances.
• The present reference is an attempt to resolve whether Governors’ inaction can be constitutionally limited through prescribed timelines, ensuring accountability without undermining constitutional checks.

Summary of the Current Issue

• According to the reports, the Supreme Court is deliberating on the question of fixing time-bound limits for Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills. 
• The Court has acknowledged that prolonged delays effectively amount to a pocket veto, which was never envisaged in the Constitution.
• The bench is also exploring whether such timelines should be left to the legislature to define through constitutional amendment or whether the Court can lay down broad principles under its powers of interpretation.
• This debate holds far-reaching implications for India’s federal structure. While Governors are meant to be neutral constitutional authorities, their actions are often viewed through the prism of partisan politics, especially when different parties are in power at the Centre and in the State. 
• By addressing this grey area, the Supreme Court’s eventual decision could significantly reshape the relationship between Governors and State legislatures.

Implications for Federalism

• Strengthening Legislative Authority: Time-bound assent would reinforce the authority of elected State legislatures, reducing executive interference.
• Preventing Political Deadlocks: It would minimise friction between Governors and State governments, ensuring smoother legislative functioning.
• Judicial Oversight on Federal Balance: The case marks an important judicial intervention in clarifying ambiguities of the Constitution that impact Centre-State relations.
• Setting a Precedent: The ruling could also influence debates on other constitutional offices where delays in decision-making affect governance.

Source: TH