TIMELINES FOR GOVERNORS: JUDICIAL INNOVATION OR CONSTITUTIONAL OVERREACH?

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOT INTENDED

PICTURE COURTESY:  THE HINDU

Context

The Supreme Court is examining a Presidential reference on whether it can set timelines for Governors and the President in assenting to State Bills under Articles 200–201.

Background

In April 2025, the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v/s The Governor of Tamil Nadu ruled against Governors’ indefinite delays in acting on state Bills, prescribing strict timelines under Article 200 to ensure constitutional accountability.

Key Outcomes of the Supreme Court Ruling

Timelines Imposed: Governors must decide on Bills within one month (assent, withhold, or reserve for President) when acting on ministerial advice, and three months if contrary to advice; re-passed Bills require assent within one month, with no reservation allowed.

Rejection of Pocket Veto: Indefinite withholding of assent declared unconstitutional; Governors must return Bills “as soon as possible” if withholding, or face judicial correction via writ of mandamus.

Article 142 Application: Court used plenary powers to grant “deemed assent” to 10 Tamil Nadu Bills, resolving delays and reserving re-passed Bills for the President unconstitutionally.

Presidential Action: Reserved Bills require Presidential decision within three months, ensuring timely resolution.

Wider Impact: Ruling sets a precedent for states facing similar delays (e.g., Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal), curbing Governors’ overreach and reinforcing legislative sovereignty.

Significance of Judicial Intervention

Upholding Constitutional Morality: Timelines ensure Governors act promptly, aligning with the public mandate and preventing obstruction of elected governments’ policies.

Reinforcing Aid and Advice: Reaffirms that Governors’ discretion under Article 163 is limited; must follow ministerial advice except in rare cases, per Shamsher Singh case (1974).

Precedent for Federalism: Offers a template for resolving legislative delays in states like Telangana and Punjab, reducing Centre-State friction.

Judicial Oversight: Expands Article 142’s use to correct unconstitutional inaction; subjects Governors’ delays to review, as seen in Rameshwar Prasad (2006) and State of Punjab (2023).

Democratic Accountability: Curtails unelected Governors from stalling elected legislatures, aligning with Nabam Rebia (2016) on ceremonial roles.

Timelines for Governors: Judicial Innovation or Constitutional Overreach?

Judicial Innovation

Filling a Constitutional Vacuum: The Constitutional makers left “as soon as possible” undefined; the Court operationalized it.

Protecting Democracy: Prevents unelected Governors from paralysing elected legislatures.

Strengthening Cooperative Federalism: Reinforces that the Governor is a ceremonial link, not a political actor.

Constitutional Morality: Reaffirms primacy of ministerial advice under Article 163.

Practical Relief: Provides a clear roadmap for pending disputes in Punjab, Kerala, Telangana, etc.

Constitutional Overreach

Judicial Amendment: Critics argue the Court “read into” Article 200 what the framers did not specify.

Violation of Separation of Powers: Legislature, not judiciary, should prescribe timelines through constitutional amendment.

Slippery Slope: Opens doors for judiciary to impose procedural rules on other constitutional authorities (e.g., President under Article 201).

Union Government’s Stand: Decisions under Articles 200–201 are political, not judicially enforceable.

Article 143 Reference: The President has sought SC’s advisory opinion, questioning whether timelines and “deemed assent” are judicially valid.

Challenges in Governors’ Role

Politicization of Office: Governors, often seen as Centre’s agents in opposition-ruled states, strain cooperative federalism; e.g., Arunachal Pradesh (2016) saw unconstitutional dismissal, later reversed by the Supreme Court.

Overuse of Discretion: Misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) without floor tests (Uttarakhand, 2016) or interference in university appointments (Kerala, 2024) fuels governance paralysis.

Lack of Accountability: No impeachment process; Governors answer only to the President, enabling partisan actions without state-level checks.

Constitutional Ambiguity: Article 200’s lack of timelines allows delays; “as soon as possible” vague, exploited for political leverage.

Judicial Overreach Concerns: Critics, including the Solicitor General, argue timelines and “deemed assent” encroach on executive powers, risking separation of powers; Presidential Reference (Article 143) challenges ruling’s validity.

Way Forward 

Constitutional Amendments: Insert explicit timelines in Article 200 (e.g., 1-2 months for Bill decisions); limit Article 163 discretion to national interest cases, per Sarkaria Commission (1988).

Implement Commission Recommendations: Adopt Punchhi Commission’s (2007) six-month limit for reserved Bills and state-level impeachment process; enforce Sarkaria’s non-partisan appointment norms with CM consultation.

Enhance Cooperative Federalism: Utilize Inter-State Council for Centre-State dialogue; mandate regular Governor-CM meetings to preempt disputes.

Neutral Appointments: Form a committee (PM, Home Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, CM) for Governor selection, per Venkatachaliah Commission (2002), excluding recent political affiliates.

Accountability Mechanisms: Establish Judicial Commissions for periodic review of Governors’ actions; introduce state-level accountability via legislative oversight.

Restrict President’s Rule: Limit Article 356 use to objective crises, backed by floor tests and judicial scrutiny, ensuring last-resort application.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling marks a pivotal step in curbing Governors’ overreach, reinforcing democratic accountability and federal balance. By institutionalizing timelines and checks, India can ensure Governors serve as facilitators, not obstructions, to elected mandates, strengthening constitutional governance.

SOURCE: THE HINDU