Editorial 1 : Governor’s Role in Granting Assent to Bills
Context
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion delivered under Article 143 on the Governor’s role in granting assent to State Bills has brought renewed focus on constitutional silence, discretionary powers, federal balance, and democratic accountability, especially amid recurring instances of prolonged gubernatorial delays in Opposition-ruled States.
Introduction
Recently, the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court addresses a long-standing constitutional concern regarding the Governor’s authority under Article 200. While the Court held that it cannot prescribe fixed timelines for Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures, the opinion has triggered debate on whether such restraint inadvertently legitimises executive inaction, weakens legislative supremacy, and departs from the constitutional vision of a parliamentary democracy.
Background to the Dispute
- Pattern of Delayed Assent
- Governors in multiple States have delayed assent to Bills for extended and undefined periods.
- Such delays are perceived to be politically selective, largely affecting Opposition-ruled States, thereby raising concerns of Centre-State friction.
- Tamil Nadu Episode
- Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to several Bills for nearly three years.
- The State government challenged this in the Supreme Court, citing violation of democratic norms and constitutional morality.
- April 2025 Supreme Court Judgment
- A two-judge Bench ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold Bills.
- It suggested a reasonable timeframe (generally three months) and introduced the principle of deemed assent in cases of inaction.
- Presidential Reference
- The Union government invoked Article 143, seeking clarity on whether courts could mandate timelines for constitutional authorities like Governors and the President.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
- No Fixed Judicial Timelines
- The Court held that prescribing mandatory timelines would amount to judicial overreach into constitutional functions.
- Constitutional Options Under Article 200
- Grant assent to the Bill.
- Withhold assent and return the Bill to the legislature (except Money Bills).
- Reserve the Bill for consideration of the President.
- Scope for Limited Judicial Intervention
- In cases of “prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction”, courts may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to act.
- Courts cannot examine the merits or wisdom of the Governor’s decision.
- The opinion remains advisory and non-binding in nature.
Issues and Concerns Raised
1. Ambiguity Surrounding ‘Reasonable Time’
- The opinion fails to:
- Define objective parameters for “prolonged” or “indefinite” delay.
- Specify any outer time limit for gubernatorial action.
- As a result:
- Bills have remained pending for nine years in West Bengal.
- Delays of three years in Tamil Nadu were judicially contested.
- This ambiguity perpetuates constitutional uncertainty and repeated litigation.
2. Departure from Constituent Assembly Intent
- Dr B.R. Ambedkar, during Constituent Assembly debates (May 31, 1949), clearly stated:
- The Governor is a nominal and ornamental head.
- He is not expected to exercise independent discretion.
- All executive functions must be performed on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The advisory opinion appears to elevate the Governor’s role beyond this intended constitutional design, thereby diluting legislative primacy.
3. Democratic and Federal Implications
- Governors are unelected nominees of the Centre, while State legislatures derive legitimacy from popular mandate.
- Prolonged delay in assent:
- Undermines legislative supremacy.
- Weakens cooperative federalism.
- Allows indirect central influence over State legislation.
- This contradicts judicial precedents such as:
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) – Governor acts on ministerial advice.
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) – Discretion must be narrowly interpreted.
Arguments Supporting the Advisory Opinion
- Upholds separation of powers by preventing judicial intrusion into constitutional functions.
- Respects constitutional silence where the framers did not prescribe explicit timelines.
- Prevents courts from substituting constitutional authorities with judicial mandates.
Arguments Critiquing the Advisory Opinion
- Enables constitutional paralysis through deliberate inaction.
- Weakens accountability of an unelected constitutional office.
- Converts silence into an informal veto over elected legislatures.
- Risks politicisation of the Governor’s office.
Way Forward
- Judicial Clarification
- A future Constitution Bench should define measurable standards for “reasonable time”.
- Legislative or Constitutional Reform
- Parliament may consider codifying timelines for assent while preserving federal balance.
- Reinforcing Constitutional Morality
- Governors must function as impartial constitutional heads, guided by democratic norms rather than political considerations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion demonstrates institutional restraint but fails to resolve the core democratic problem of indefinite gubernatorial inaction. By not engaging sufficiently with the framers’ intent and federal principles, it risks normalising executive delay as a constitutional tool. In a parliamentary democracy, silence by an unelected authority cannot be allowed to override the will of an elected legislature. Clear constitutional or legislative guidance is essential to protect federalism, accountability, and democratic governance.