Supreme Court Rules on Governor's Assent to State Legislation
In a significant judgment delivered in April 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional responsibilities of State Governors regarding the assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures. The case arose from petitions filed by Tamil Nadu and other states alleging deliberate delays by Governors in acting upon legislation.
The Court’s decision aims to uphold the federal structure of the Indian Constitution and prevent the misuse of the Governor’s office to obstruct the legislative functions of elected governments.
Background
- Petitions by States: Tamil Nadu and several other states approached the Supreme Court against the persistent inaction of Governors on Bills passed by State Legislatures.
- Primary Legal Question: Whether Governors can withhold or delay assent to State Bills indefinitely without accountability.
- Relevant Constitutional Provisions:
- Article 200: Outlines the Governor's options upon presentation of a Bill.
- Article 201: Relates to the President’s consideration if a Bill is reserved.
- Article 200: Outlines the Governor's options upon presentation of a Bill.
Supreme Court’s Key Directions
➔ Governor Must Act Promptly:
The Court emphasized that while the Constitution does not prescribe a fixed timeframe, the Governor must act promptly when a Bill is presented under Article 200. Undue delay violates the principle of constitutional governance.
➔ No Absolute Discretion:
Governors are not vested with absolute discretion. Their role under Articles 200 and 201 is limited and bound by constitutional morality.
➔ Options Available to Governor:
- Grant assent.
- Withhold assent.
- Return the Bill for reconsideration (if it is not a Money Bill).
- Reserve the Bill for the President's consideration.
➔ Grounds for Judicial Review:
The Court held that unreasonable or mala fide delay in granting assent is open to judicial review to prevent executive inaction from stalling the legislative process.
Constitutional and Legal Basis
- Article 163:
The Governor is bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where discretion is expressly provided.
- Article 200:
Enumerates the specific actions a Governor can take when presented with a Bill but does not permit indefinite withholding.
- Article 201:
In case of reservation for Presidential assent, the President too must act within a reasonable time frame.
- Judicial Precedents Cited:
The Court relied on earlier rulings like Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), which emphasized that Governors must act on ministerial advice except in rare cases.
Importance of the Judgment
- Strengthening Federalism:
The ruling reaffirms that State Legislatures are supreme in their domain and Governors must respect the legislative authority of elected governments.
- Limiting Political Abuse:
The decision prevents Governors from delaying assent for political reasons, safeguarding the autonomy of State governance.
- Promotion of Constitutional Morality:
The Court stressed that constitutional functionaries must adhere to constitutional norms, ensuring transparency, accountability, and respect for democratic principles.
Key Observations of the Court
- Governorship Is a Constitutional, Not Political, Office:
The role of the Governor must remain neutral and free from political bias.
- No Pocket Veto Permitted:
The Governor cannot exercise an indefinite "pocket veto" to frustrate the legislative intent of elected representatives.
- Preserving State Autonomy:
The balance between the Centre and States, a fundamental aspect of Indian federalism, must be maintained without undue interference.
Future Implications
- Clearer Legislative Processes:
State governments now have a stronger legal framework to challenge inaction and delays by Governors.
- Judicial Check on Executive Inaction:
The judiciary can now actively intervene where Governors fail to fulfill their constitutional obligations promptly.
- Encouragement for Decentralization:
The ruling promotes the effective functioning of State Legislatures, crucial for decentralized governance under the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment is a vital step towards ensuring that the constitutional role of Governors is exercised within clearly defined limits. By affirming prompt action, limiting discretionary abuse, and enabling judicial review, the decision strengthens democratic governance and preserves the federal balance envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments