Governor’s Discretion, Timelines on Assent, and Supreme Court’s Role: A Constitutional Debate

By Suryavanshi IAS

---

Introduction

The relationship between the Governor and the State Legislature has once again come under judicial scrutiny. The Union Government, in a submission before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai), argued that the Court cannot treat Governors as "aliens" or "foreigners" on whom timelines can be imposed. This submission, made by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, challenges the April 2024 judgment that placed a three-month limit on Governors and the President in dealing with State Bills.

The debate is not merely about procedure—it touches the very fabric of federalism, separation of powers, and the deliberate silences of the Constitution.

---

Background of the Case

• April 2024 Supreme Court Judgment (Two-Judge Bench):

  • Imposed a 3-month deadline on Governors and the President to act on State Bills.

  • Restricted the Governor’s discretion in dealing with Bills, suggesting they could not indefinitely withhold assent.

• Presidential Reference:

  • The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench for authoritative interpretation.

  • Tamil Nadu opposed the Reference, arguing it cannot be used to reopen or nullify judicial verdicts.

• Union Government’s Position (Through SG Tushar Mehta):

  • The April ruling trespassed into a domain reserved for Governors and the President.

  • The absence of time limits in Article 200 (Governor’s assent) and Article 201 (President’s consideration of State Bills) was a deliberate constitutional choice.

  • Courts cannot, under Article 142, create the idea of “deemed assent.”

---

Constitutional Provisions in Focus

1. Article 200 – Governor’s Powers

   • Assent to the Bill.

   • Withhold assent.

   • Reserve Bill for the consideration of the President.

   • Return Bill for reconsideration (except Money Bills).

2. Article 201 – President’s Powers (on Bills reserved by Governor)

   • Assent to the Bill.

   • Withhold assent.

   • No explicit time limit prescribed in either provision.

3. Article 142 – Supreme Court’s power to pass orders for “complete justice.”

   • SG argued this cannot be used to assume legislative or executive powers.

---

Union Government’s Key Submissions

1. Governor not a "post office":

   • Governors are not mere channels for State legislation.

   • They act as constitutional checks against “hasty legislation.”

2. Democratic Legitimacy of Governors:

   • Though indirectly appointed, Governors represent indirect democratic legitimacy.

   • Their assent carries a unique duality—executive authority giving effect to legislative action.

3. Judicial Overreach Argument:

   • Imposing deadlines = judicial amendment of the Constitution.

   • Only Parliament/Constituent Assembly can make such changes.

4. Separation of Powers:

   • “Failure or inaction of one organ cannot authorize another to usurp powers.”

   • Courts should not create ‘deemed assent’ when the Constitution deliberately avoided such a concept.

---

Tamil Nadu’s Counter-Position

• Presidential References cannot be used to reopen or dilute settled judicial rulings.

• Governors, by sitting on Bills indefinitely, violate the spirit of democracy and legislative supremacy of elected Assemblies.

---

Larger Constitutional and Political Context

1. Federal Balance:

   • The Governor often becomes a flashpoint between Centre and States.

   • Particularly relevant in opposition-ruled States (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, West Bengal).

2. Constitutional Silences:

   • Framers of the Constitution deliberately left no timelines in Articles 200 & 201.

   • But prolonged inaction raises questions of accountability.

3. Judicial Precedents:

   • Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): Governor is bound by aid and advice of Council of Ministers.

   • Nabam Rebia (2016): Governor cannot act arbitrarily against elected governments.

   • April 2024 ruling added judicially fixed deadlines—now under challenge.

---

UPSC Relevance

GS Paper II – Polity & Constitution

• Separation of Powers.

• Federalism.

• Role of Governor.

• Judicial activism vs restraint.

Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

1. UPSC CSE 2018 (Mains – GS II):
   “Whether the Supreme Court Judgment (2018) can settle the political tussle between the Governor and the State legislature? Discuss.”

2. UPSC CSE 2021 (Mains – GS II):
   “The Governor’s role in the Indian Constitution has often been in the eye of the storm. Critically examine.”

3. UPSC CSE 2017 (Prelims):
   “Which of the following is/are discretionary powers of the Governor?”

---

Critical Analysis (Suryavanshi IAS View)

• Merit in Centre’s Argument:

  • Judicial imposition of timelines does look like constitutional amendment through interpretation.

  • Separation of powers must be respected.

• But Practical Concerns Remain:

  • Governors sitting on Bills indefinitely undermines legislative supremacy and people’s mandate.

  • Federalism demands Governors act as neutral constitutional guardians, not political agents.

• Way Forward:

  • A constitutional amendment or Parliamentary law could prescribe timelines.

  • Until then, the judiciary should adopt a balanced approach—ensuring accountability without rewriting the Constitution.

---

Conclusion

The ongoing debate before the Constitution Bench is more than a legal tussle—it is a test of Indian federalism. It raises the classic question: Can silence in the Constitution be filled by judicial innovation, or must it be left untouched as deliberate constitutional design?