Source: SC must pause and examine unintended consequences of its ruling prescribing a timeline for the president, The Indian Express, April 15, 2025
Source: Tamil Nadu governor case: Judicial overreach, not constitutional interpretation, The Indian Express, April 15, 2025
The Supreme Court recently ruled that Governors must act within a set timeframe when granting assent to bills, and extended this timeline to the President’s role in cases where bills are reserved for presidential consideration. This move has sparked concerns about judicial overreach, potential violations of constitutional provisions, and the blurring of separation of powers among the judiciary, executive, and legislature.
Separation Of Powers Faces New Test After SC Ruling
- Governor Cannot Stall Bills Arbitrarily: In the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court ruled that a Governor cannot indefinitely delay their assent to bills, thereby obstructing the legislative process.
- Timelines Imposed for Assent Process: The two-judge bench introduced specific deadlines for the Governor to act, aiming to prevent political stalling of state legislation.
- President’s Role Brought Under Judicial Scrutiny: The Court extended its directives to the President, mandating a three-month limit for assent when a bill is referred by the Governor, inviting states to approach the judiciary if this timeline is not adhered to.
- Unprecedented Judicial Territory: By suggesting that courts can issue a writ of mandamus against the President, the ruling ventures into new and uncertain constitutional territory.
- Backdrop of Political Conflict: The verdict comes amidst ongoing friction between state governments ruled by Opposition parties and Governors appointed by the Centre.
- Linking Governor and President’s Actions: The ruling aims to address delays caused by the Governor-President loop by closing procedural gaps and enforcing time-bound decisions.
- Separation of Powers in Question: The Court’s directives, particularly those relating to presidential assent and interpretation under Article 143, potentially overstep the boundaries of judicial authority, undermining the principle of separation of powers.
- Concerns Over Bench Strength: Critics argue that the case involved significant constitutional interpretation and should have been decided by a Constitution Bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3).
- Cabinet’s Advisory Role Undermined: Article 74 mandates that the President act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court’s directive for the President to seek its opinion without Cabinet approval sidelines this constitutional mandate.
- Judicial Overreach and Political Ramifications: By invoking Article 142 to impose time limits and compel presidential actions, the Court risks unsettling the constitutional balance. The issue of Governors is inherently political, and the judiciary must be cautious to avoid becoming entangled in partisan conflicts.
Understanding Article 200 of the Indian Constitution
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the powers and procedures that govern the role of the Governor in the legislative process of a state. It plays a critical role in maintaining the balance between the executive authority of the Governor and the legislative power of the State Legislature.
1. Legislative Prerequisite: How a Bill Reaches the Governor
Before a Bill can be considered by the Governor, it must pass through the following legislative process:
- In states with a unicameral legislature: The Bill must be passed by the State Legislative Assembly.
- In states with a bicameral legislature: The Bill must be passed by both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council.
Only after this process is completed can the Bill be presented to the Governor.
2. Governor’s Fourfold Course of Action
Upon receiving a Bill, the Governor has multiple constitutional options:
- Grant Assent: Approve the Bill and allow it to become law.
- Withhold Assent: Reject the Bill entirely.
- Reserve for Presidential Consideration: Refer the Bill to the President of India, particularly when constitutional concerns arise.
- Return for Reconsideration: Send the Bill (except a Money Bill) back to the Legislature for review with suggested changes.
3. The Reconsideration Process: Governor’s Advisory Role
The Governor can return a non-Money Bill for reconsideration, accompanied by specific recommendations. This process includes:
- Proposing amendments to particular provisions.
- Requesting a full review of the Bill.
- Advising on policy or constitutional compliance.
Note: The Constitution uses the phrase “as soon as possible” for returning a Bill, implying urgency, but it does not impose a strict deadline.
4. Legislative Response: Action on Returned Bills
Once the Bill is returned:
- The House(s) must deliberate on the Governor’s recommendations.
- The Legislature is not obligated to accept the proposed amendments.
- If the Legislature passes the Bill again, with or without changes, the Governor must give assent—refusal is not permitted at this stage.
5. Special Clause: Bills Affecting the Judiciary
The Governor is constitutionally bound to reserve a Bill for Presidential consideration if:
- The Bill, in their opinion, threatens or diminishes the powers of the High Court, thereby affecting its constitutional position.
6. Exclusion of Money Bills: A Unique Limitation
The Governor cannot return a Money Bill for reconsideration.
This establishes Money Bills as a distinct category within legislative proceedings, treated with stricter constitutional boundaries.
7. Interpretation and Ambiguities
Article 200 uses the phrase “as soon as possible” for Governor’s action on Bills.
However, the absence of a fixed timeframe has led to concerns over delays and ambiguities in implementation.