Should Governors Have Fixed Timelines for Decisions?

Quick Summary

• Supreme Court Hearing: The Supreme Court is reviewing a Presidential reference from May 2025 regarding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
• Background Case: In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled on timelines for Governors and Presidents to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. Key points include:

– Three-month timeline for Governors to decide on assent or reservation of Bills.
– Requirement that Governors assent to Bills passed again by a State legislature after initial withholding.
– Judicial review applicable for delays beyond these timelines.

• Constitutional Context:

– Article 200 gives Governors four options regarding State legislative Bills: assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve them for Presidential consideration.
– The Governor acts per ministerial advice unless explicitly required under Constitutional provisions to use discretion (Article 163).

• Center’s Arguments: Contests judicial timelines stating they conflict with Articles 200 and 201, which lack explicit timeframes. It believes such issues should be resolved politically within constitutional limits.
• State Governments’ Position: Opposition-led States argue delayed action by Governors undermines federal principles and popular mandates.
• Suggestion History:

– Sarkaria Commission (1987): Advocated minimal discretionary power for Governors over Bill reservations; proposed a six-month timeframe for Presidential decisions.
– Punchhi Commission (2010): Suggested a six-month period for Governor’s decisions on legislative Bills.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The ongoing Supreme Court hearing is pivotal in addressing recurring tensions between elected state governments, governors, and central institutions-a crucial factor within India’s federal framework. The April 2025 judgment introducing fixed timelines seeks to prevent bureaucratic delays often perceived as politically motivated. While stipulating deadlines not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution raises concerns about judicial overreach,historical precedents illustrate similar interventions balancing procedural efficacy and democratic integrity.

The larger debate mirrors longstanding critiques around gubernatorial roles being politicized-underscoring issues of representation versus central control.A clear delineation reaffirming respect towards state legislatures’ autonomy while preserving constitutional checks remains essential in sustaining harmonious intergovernmental relations. This case’s outcome could have enduring implications across states where opposition-governed administrations challenge perceived executive bias.

Read more