Can timelines be fixed for Governors?

Background

• Presidential Reference (May 2025): Supreme Court asked for opinion on 14 questions mainly on Articles 200 and 201 (Governor/President assent to State Bills).
• Trigger Judgment:State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr (April 2025)
  • Prescribed timelines:
    • Governor: 3 months to act on Bills (assent, withhold, or reserve for President).
    • President: 3 months to decide on Bills reserved by Governor.
  • Delay beyond timelines can be judicially reviewed.
• Government Objection: Raised question of Court’s authority to prescribe timelines when Constitution does not specify them.

Relevance :

• GS2 (Polity / Governance): Governor’s discretion, state–centre relations, federalism, judicial review.
• GS2 (Constitutional Law): Articles 163, 200, 201, principle of responsible government, commission recommendations.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 200: Governor’s options when a State Bill is presented:
  • Assent
  • Withhold (reject)
  • Return for reconsideration
  • Reserve for President
• Article 163(1): Governor must act per Council of Ministers’ advice, except when Constitution requires discretion.
• Provison in Article 200: Governor may return Bill “as soon as possible” for reconsideration.
• Article 201: President’s assent to Bills reserved by Governor; no timeline specified.
• Discretionary Powers of Governor:
  • Rare, e.g., Bill contravening Constitution or affecting High Court powers.
  • Otherwise, action is ministerial, not discretionary.
• Judicial Precedent:
  • Shamsher Singh (1974): Governor cannot withhold assent at will; must follow ministers’ advice.
  • April 2025 judgment interpreted “Governor shall” as mandatory, not discretionary.

Commission Recommendations

• Sarkaria Commission (1987):
  • Only rare reservation of Bills for President implies discretion.
  • President should act within 6 months on reserved Bills.
• Punchhi Commission (2010):
  • Governor should decide on Bills within 6 months.

Arguments

• Centre / Union Government:
  • Governor has constitutional discretion under Article 163(1).
  • Courts cannot fix timelines; issues between Governor, State Govt, and President should be resolved politically.
  • Article 201 (President) has no timelines; judicial intervention may undermine federalism.
• Opposition-ruled States:
  • Governors in such States allegedly delay assent/reserve Bills selectively.
  • Delays against ministerial advice undermine popular mandate.
  • Delay cannot be termed as legitimate discretion.
• Supreme Court’s Stand (April 2025):
  • Interpreted Article 200: “Governor shall” act, not discretionary.
  • Prescribed 3-month timeline for Governor/President actions.
  • Reliance on past judgments (Nabam Rebia, 2006) and commission recommendations.

Challenges

• Federalism vs Judicial Oversight: Balancing Governor’s discretion with elected government authority.
• Politicisation of Governor’s Post: Allegations of bias in Opposition-ruled States.
• Democratic Functioning: Delays in assent/reservation can stall law-making and governance.

Way Forward

• Short-Term:
  • Centre and Governors should adhere to April 2025 judgment timelines (3 months) to respect federalism and democratic principles.
  • Await Supreme Court opinion on Presidential reference for clarification.
• Long-Term / Structural:
  • Consider measures to reduce politicisation of gubernatorial posts.
  • Ensure constitutional scheme provides for nominal head while protecting State government’s authority.
  • Foster political consensus to prevent recurrent legislative impasses.

Significance

• Clarifies scope of Governor’s discretion vs ministerial advice.
• Strengthens principle of responsible government at State level.
• Judicial timelines aim to prevent undue delays in legislative process.
• Reinforces federal and democratic checks and balances