The Supreme Court, during a hearing on a presidential reference, stressed that governors are expected to grant assent to state assembly-passed bills within a reasonable time, while cautioning against setting rigid time limits due to potential risks of excessive judicial intervention in legislative processes. This observation came amid pleas from opposition-ruled states like Kerala, Karnataka, and Punjab, highlighting delays by governors in acting on bills, prompting debates on constitutional obligations and gubernatorial discretion.
Constitutional Provisions on Governors' Role in Assent to Bills
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the governor's options when a bill is presented: grant assent, withhold assent, return it for reconsideration by the assembly, or reserve it for the President's consideration. If returned and repassed, the governor must assent unless reserved for the President. However, the provision uses "as soon as possible," which the Supreme Court has interpreted as requiring action within a reasonable time to prevent indefinite delays. Article 201 allows the President similar powers for reserved bills. These provisions aim to balance federalism, ensuring governors—appointed by the Centre—do not undermine elected state governments. Historically, from the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized the governor's ceremonial role, acting on the aid and advice of the council of ministers under Article 163, except in discretionary matters like dismissing a government or recommending President's Rule under Article 356.
Background of the Presidential Reference and Earlier Rulings
The presidential reference under Article 143 was made in April 2025 by President Droupadi Murmu, seeking the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on whether fixed timelines could be imposed on governors and the President for acting on bills. This followed a landmark April 2025 Supreme Court judgment in pleas from Telangana and Kerala, where the court, for the first time, set three-month deadlines: governors must return bills "as soon as possible" or face deemed assent if delayed beyond three months. The ruling addressed chronic delays, such as in Kerala where Governor Arif Mohammed Khan withheld assent to eight bills for up to two years, and in Tamil Nadu where similar issues led to litigation. The reference questions if such judicial timelines infringe on executive discretion, highlighting tensions in India's federal structure where governors, often seen as Centre's agents, delay bills from opposition states.
Arguments from Opposition-Ruled States
States like Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab, and Telangana have consistently argued that governors lack unfettered discretion, bound by the "as soon as possible" clause to act forthwith, especially on money bills critical for state finances. For instance, delays in Kerala disrupted university governance and welfare schemes, while Punjab's plea highlighted how withholding assent undermines democratic mandates. Advocates stressed that governors must follow cabinet advice, and any delay violates Article 21 (right to life) by stalling public welfare. They proposed that bills pending beyond reasonable time be deemed assented, preventing gubernatorial overreach that could lead to constitutional breakdowns warranting Article 356 intervention.
Judicial Concerns Over Fixed Timelines
The Supreme Court expressed apprehension that imposing strict deadlines risks judicial overreach, potentially inviting more petitions and entangling courts in day-to-day legislative affairs. Justice P S Narasimha noted the "biggest risk" in scheduling, as it could monitor and control the legislative process excessively. While acknowledging the need for expediency to complete legislative cycles, the bench favored a flexible "reasonable time" standard over rigid limits, drawing parallels to past cases where timelines were set in statutory voids but cautioning against extending this to constitutional functions. This reevaluation aims to uphold separation of powers while curbing arbitrary delays.
Significance for Federalism and Governance
This case underscores India's federal challenges, where governors' delays have escalated Centre-state conflicts, particularly in non-BJP ruled states. Resolving it could strengthen democratic accountability, ensuring elected assemblies' laws are not stalled indefinitely. It also reinforces the governor's role as a constitutional facilitator rather than a veto wielder, promoting cooperative federalism as envisioned in the Sarkaria (1988) and Punchhi (2010) Commissions, which recommended minimal discretionary use and timely action on bills.
© 2025 Gaining Sun. All rights reserved.