Can Timelines Be Fixed for Governors?
Context
-
The Supreme Court is hearing a Presidential reference (May 2025) on 14 questions regarding interpretation of Articles 200 & 201.
-
Triggered by SC judgment (April 2025, State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu) which prescribed timelines for Governors/President to act on State Bills.
-
Issue: Can courts fix timelines when the Constitution is silent?
Background – The April 2025 Judgment
-
Governor’s action on Bills (Article 200):
-
If assent is withheld or Bill reserved for President against CoM advice → must do so within 3 months.
-
If Bill returned and re-passed by legislature → Governor shall assent.
-
-
President’s decision (Article 201):
-
Must decide within 3 months on reserved Bills.
-
-
Judicial Review: Delays beyond timelines subject to court scrutiny.
Constitutional Position
-
Article 200: Governor may
(a) give assent; (b) withhold assent; (c) return Bill (once); (d) reserve Bill for President. -
Article 201: President may assent/withhold on reserved Bills (no timeline mentioned).
-
Article 163: Governor bound by CoM advice except in discretionary matters. Discretional question → Governor’s decision final (163(2)).
-
Key Case Law:
-
Shamsher Singh (1974): Governor acts on CoM advice.
-
Nabam Rebia (2016): Governor cannot act without aid/advice except in specific constitutional provisions.
-
Recommendations of Commissions
-
Sarkaria Commission (1987):
-
Reservation of Bills → only in rare cases of unconstitutionality.
-
President should dispose within 6 months.
-
-
Punchhi Commission (2010):
-
Governor should act within 6 months on Bills.
-
Arguments
Centre’s Stand:
-
Governor enjoys discretion under Art. 163; not justiciable.
-
Courts cannot prescribe timelines absent in Constitution.
-
Issues must be resolved politically, not judicially.
Opposition-ruled States’ Stand:
-
Governors selectively delay assent/reserve Bills against CoM advice.
-
Such delays undermine popular mandate & violate federal spirit.
-
“Discretion” misused as political tool.
Analysis / Implications
1. Constitutional Morality
-
Governors expected to act as neutral constitutional heads, not political actors.
-
Prolonged inaction = undermining democracy & federalism.
2. Judicial Approach
-
Courts cautious on stipulating timelines but have intervened (e.g., K.M. Singh case 2020 → 3 months for Speaker on disqualification).
-
April 2025 judgment = purposive interpretation of “Governor shall” in Art. 200.
3. Federal Balance
-
Arbitrary delays erode cooperative federalism.
-
Politicisation of Governor’s post = core issue.
Way Forward
-
Follow SC’s April 2025 timelines: uphold democratic and federal values.
-
Institutionalise clear guidelines for Governor’s assent to prevent misuse.
-
Consider constitutional amendment for fixed timelines (like Sarkaria/Punchhi suggested).
-
Ensure judicial oversight in case of unreasonable delays.
-
Depoliticise Governor’s office → reforms in appointment/removal process.
