Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
In a major clarification of the constitutional relationship between state governments and governors, the Supreme Court on Thursday laid down the limits and contours of the governor’s power in approving bills. The five-judge Constitution bench gave its opinion on a set of 14 questions referred by President Draupadi Murmu, ruling that while the Governor cannot stay legislation indefinitely, the courts also cannot impose strict timelines on constitutional authorities.
The decision, delivered days before the retirement of Chief Justice BR Gavai, comes amid growing friction between several state governments and Raj Bhavans over the delay in signing the bills.
The court said Article 200 gives only three options to governors when the bill is introduced: to give assent, reserve it for the President, or withhold assent and return it for reconsideration. Importantly, it ruled out the possibility of “simply withholding assent”, saying a Governor cannot refuse to sign a bill and put it in abeyance.
On whether the Governor should follow the advice of the Cabinet, the bench said that the act of giving consent is discretionary. It states that if the Governor is bound by ministerial advice, he will never be able to return a bill to the legislature.
The judges clarified that although the merits of the Governor’s decision are not open to scrutiny, the “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction” can be reviewed in court. Article 361’s personal immunity for Governors does not protect the office from judicial scrutiny of constitutional delays.
However, the court strongly rejected the idea of setting time limits for governors, overturning an April ruling that had set a time limit of one to three months. The phrase “as soon as possible” is flexible and cannot be transformed into a judicially enforceable clock, it said.
The bench extended similar principles to the role of the President under Article 201, holding that the President’s discretion is not coercive and cannot be subject to time limits. It was also clarified that whenever a bill is reserved, the President is not required to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143.
Reiterating the boundary between courts and legislatures, the judges said that bills cannot be reviewed before they become law, and Article 142 cannot be used to create “deemed consent” or override constitutional processes.
The court refused to answer two questions relating to the scope of Articles 145(3) and 131, citing them as irrelevant to the main issue of legislative consent.
The judgment is expected to serve as a constitutional guide at a time when several states have accused governors of blocking legislation, while governors have insisted they are acting within their rights.