Debate on Fixing Timelines for Governors’ Assent to Bills
Background
The Supreme Court is currently examining a Presidential reference that questions whether Constitutional timelines can be imposed on Governors for approving State Bills. This issue has emerged in the broader context of Centre–State relations and the functioning of Indian federalism.
Trigger for the Reference
The matter originates from a Supreme Court judgment of April 2025, where the Court introduced specific deadlines for constitutional authorities:
- Governors were directed to decide on State Bills within three months.
- The President was also expected to act within a reasonable period on Bills reserved by Governors.
This judgment forms the basis of the current Presidential reference under Article 143.
Centre’s Objection
The Union Government has questioned the judiciary’s power to introduce timelines not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. It argues that:
- The Court may have overstepped its jurisdiction by prescribing time limits.
- Judicial intervention in executive discretion may disturb constitutional balance.
Governor’s Constitutional Powers
Under Article 200, once a Bill is passed by a State Legislature, the Governor may:
- Give assent,
- Withhold assent,
- Return the Bill (except Money Bills) for reconsideration, or
- Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration under Article 201.
Although expected to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, Governors have limited discretionary power, especially when:
- A Bill may conflict with the Constitution,
- It affects judicial powers or the executive domain of the Union.
Concerns of Opposition-led States
Several States governed by opposition parties allege that:
- Governors are deliberately delaying Bills to obstruct governance.
- This erodes the democratic mandate and weakens cooperative federalism.
- The Gubernatorial office is being politicised, contrary to its intended role as a constitutional guardian.
Past Expert Recommendations
- Sarkaria Commission (1987): President should decide on State Bills within six months.
- Punchhi Commission (2010): Suggested time-bound decisions by Governors to prevent misuse of discretionary powers.
Despite these recommendations, no statutory timeline has been incorporated into the Constitution.
Judicial Precedents
The Supreme Court has previously introduced timelines for constitutional offices:
- In the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case (2020), the Court directed Speakers to decide on anti-defection cases within three months under the Tenth Schedule.
This serves as a judicial precedent for time-bound constitutional functioning.
Core Constitutional Question
The ongoing debate revolves around:
Can the judiciary enforce timelines to prevent constitutional paralysis, or would this amount to judicial overreach?
The resolution must ensure:
- Protection of federal balance,
- Respect for constitutional morality, and
- Prevention of institutional misuse.