Gubernatorial Assent under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court has issued notices in response to a Presidential Reference seeking its advisory opinion on whether the President and State Governors can be judicially mandated to act within a specified timeframe regarding assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures.

1. Background and Constitutional Basis

Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution:

• Article 200 empowers the Governor to assent, withhold assent, reserve for the President, or return a Bill (except money Bills) to the State Legislature.
• Article 201 allows the President to either assent or withhold assent for reserved Bills, with no explicit timeline provided for such action.

Article 143(1): Presidential Reference

• Enables the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance.
• The Court may render its advisory opinion, but is not constitutionally bound to do so.

2. Judicial Developments:

Tamil Nadu vs Governor Case (2024):

• The Supreme Court condemned the delay of over a year by the Tamil Nadu Governor in dealing with 10 re-passed Bills.
• It ruled that such conduct undermines the federal structure, asserting that Governors must act within a "reasonable time", though not defined precisely.

Introduction of Judicial Timelines:

• The Court laid down judicially enforceable limits on how long Governors and the President can withhold assent.
• It emphasized that constitutional morality demands non-subversion of legislative intent.

3. Constitutional and Legal Questions Raised in Reference

Can Courts Direct Timelines on Constitutional Authorities?

• The Reference questions the judiciary’s power to regulate the timelines within which discretionary constitutional roles (like assent) must be exercised.

Can Presidential Reference Overturn Judicial Verdicts?

• The Court has clarified through Cauvery Water Dispute case (1991) and Natural Resources Allocation (2012) that Article 143 cannot be used to overturn binding rulings under Article 141.
• However, clarification or refinement of prior rulings is permissible as long as the original rights and ratio decidendi remain intact.

Way Forward

• Codification of Timelines: Parliament or State Legislatures should consider amending Articles 200 and 201 to prescribe fixed timelines, similar to those for money Bills under Article 111.
• Judicial Prudence and Balance: Courts must exercise caution while interpreting discretionary constitutional powers to avoid excessive judicial overreach into the executive domain.
• Strengthening Federalism: The office of the Governor must be held to a standard of political neutrality to uphold cooperative federalism as envisaged in the Constitution.
• Limiting Political Misuse of Article 143: The President’s advisory power must not be converted into an instrument for political review of judicial verdicts already settled under Article 141.