issue of timelines for Governors in giving assent to State Bills
Constitutional Framework
Article 200: When a Bill passed by a State Legislature is presented to the Governor, he/she may:
Assent to the Bill.
Withhold assent (reject).
Return the Bill for reconsideration (except Money Bills).
Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
Article 201: If the Bill is reserved for the President, he/she may assent or withhold assent. No timeline prescribed.
Article 163: Governor to act on aid and advice of Council of Ministers, except in discretionary situations.
Judicial Position
Shamsher Singh (1974): Governor acts on advice of Council of Ministers; discretion is very limited.
Nabam Rebia (2016): Governor cannot misuse discretion; must follow constitutional morality.
K.M. Singh (2020): Court fixed a 3-month timeframe for Speakers to decide on disqualification, showing that timelines can be judicially read into provisions to prevent abuse.
April 2025 Judgment (State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr):
If Governor withholds assent or reserves Bill contrary to advice, it must be done within 3 months.
If a Bill is re-passed by State Legislature after reconsideration, Governor must give assent.
President also must decide on reserved Bills within 3 months.
Delays beyond timeline are subject to judicial review.
Commissions & Recommendations
Sarkaria Commission (1987): Governor should reserve Bills only in rare cases of clear unconstitutionality. President should decide within 6 months.
Punchhi Commission (2010): Governor should act on Bills within 6 months.
Centre’s Arguments
Constitutional Silence:
Articles 200 and 201 do not prescribe any timeline for Governors or the President to act.
Therefore, courts cannot read timelines into provisions where the Constitution is silent.
Governor’s Discretion (Article 163):
Article 163(1) requires Governor to act on ministerial advice except where discretion is explicitly allowed.
Article 163(2) makes the Governor’s decision on whether discretion applies final and beyond judicial scrutiny.
Hence, Governors may act at their own pace in certain cases.
President’s Role (Article 201):
No timeline is prescribed for the President when deciding on State Bills reserved for consideration.
The April 2025 judgment’s 3-month limit intrudes upon constitutional design.
Separation of Powers:
Courts should not encroach into the executive domain by prescribing deadlines.
Issues between elected State governments, Governors, and the Union executive must be settled politically, not judicially.
Opposition States’ Arguments
Democratic Mandate:
Governors are nominal heads; real power rests with elected governments.
Indefinite delays subvert the popular mandate of the State legislature.
No Independent Discretion:
Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (as per Shamsher Singh, 1974 and Nabam Rebia, 2016).
Returning or reserving a Bill should be done on ministerial advice, not personal judgment.
Deliberate Political Delays:
In Opposition-ruled States, Governors are allegedly stalling or reserving Bills to obstruct governance.
Such actions are politically motivated and go against federal principles.
Judicial Safeguard Necessary:
Since the Constitution is silent, courts must step in to prevent arbitrary or mala fide inaction.
Judicially prescribed timelines (like in the K.M. Singh case, 2020) are justified to uphold constitutional morality.
Concerns
Use of indefinite delay as a political tool weakens federalism.
Lack of timelines undermines State legislatures.
Politicisation of Governor’s office is the root issue.
Way Forward
Following April 2025 Judgment: 3-month timeline ensures accountability.
Reiterate commissions’ recommendations (6 months max for President, Governor).
Ensure federal balance: Governors should not act as political agents of the Union.
SC’s advisory opinion in 2025 Presidential reference may settle the matter definitively.