The lack of a timeline for presidential and gubernatorial assent to bills has led to a "pocket veto," causing friction in the federal system. The Supreme Court is now examining whether a time limit imposes an unauthorized constitutional amendment.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: INDIAN EXPRESS
The Supreme Court in April 2025, prescribed timelines for Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures, asserting that such timelines do not amount to amending the Constitution.
Governors are appointed by the President, serve as the ceremonial heads of states under Article 153 of the Constitution.
Article 200 empowers Governors to assent to, withhold assent, or reserve bills for the President’s consideration. However, prolonged delays in acting on bills have led to accusations of Governors acting as political agents, undermining state legislatures’ authority.
The court ruled that the Governor cannot use "pocket veto" by delaying decisions indefinitely on bills passed by the legislature.
It clarified that Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with gubernatorial assent, must be exercised within a "reasonable period".
The court prescribed specific timelines for Governors to act on bills:
The Supreme Court's April ruling led to a presidential reference under Article 143, which questions whether the court can impose timelines for constitutional authorities where none are explicitly mentioned.
Union government's argument: Imposing blanket timelines effectively amends the Constitution and may lead to "constitutional disorder". They maintain that delays should be addressed through political or electoral accountability, not judicial deadlines.
Supreme Court's view: During the hearings, the court questioned whether it should be powerless if constitutional functionaries indefinitely delay their assent to bills.
Ambiguity in Constitutional Provisions: Articles 200 and 201 lack explicit timelines, allowing Governors to exploit discretion, as seen in cases like Tamil Nadu’s online gaming bill delay in 2024.
Political Interference: Governors, appointed by the Centre, often align with the Union government’s interests, leading to accusations of partisanship, especially in opposition-ruled states like Punjab and Kerala.
Federalism at Risk: Delays undermine the legislative authority of elected state governments, weakening cooperative federalism.
Lack of Accountability: Governors enjoy immunity under Article 361, limiting legal recourse against their inaction, which complicates enforcement of timelines.
Inconsistent Implementation: Even with the Supreme Court’s ruling, enforcing timelines across states remains challenging due to varying political dynamics and gubernatorial discretion
|
Case Studies United Kingdom: The monarch’s assent to bills passed by Parliament is a formality, with no delays permitted. This contrasts with India’s system, where Governors have discretionary powers, highlighting the need for clearer timelines. Australia: The Governor-General, similar to India’s Governors, must act on bills promptly under constitutional conventions. Delays are rare and subject to judicial scrutiny, offering a model for India. United States: State Governors in the US have fixed timelines (e.g., 7–10 days in most states) to act on bills, failing which the bill becomes law or is vetoed automatically. This system minimizes delays and could inspire India’s reforms. |
Legislative Clarity: Amend Article 200 to include explicit timelines (e.g., 30 days for assent or return), as recommended by the Punchhi Commission, to curb discretionary delays.
Strengthening Federalism: Establish a mechanism for state governments to appeal gubernatorial inaction directly to the Supreme Court, ensuring accountability.
Institutional Reforms: Create an independent oversight body to monitor Governors’ actions, ensuring they align with constitutional mandates.
Learning from Global Models: Adopt Australia’s or the US’s fixed-timeline model for Governors to act on bills, reducing ambiguity and political interference.
Strengthening Cooperative Federalism: Promote dialogue between the Centre and states through forums like the Inter-State Council to resolve disputes over gubernatorial roles.
Source: INDIAN EXPRESS
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Critically analyze the challenges posed by gubernatorial delays in India’s legislative process and suggest reforms. 150 words |
It is the President's informal power to take no action on a bill, thereby preventing it from becoming a law indefinitely.
It made it mandatory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill, removing the power to veto it.
An ordinary bill requires a simple majority for passage, while a Constitution Amendment Bill requires a special majority and, in some cases, state ratification.
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
