Supreme Court’s view on Governor’s consent deadline a step backward for democracy: Experts

The Supreme Court’s decision not to set a deadline for governors and the President to approve bills passed by state legislatures has been strongly criticized by senior constitutional experts, who have warned that the move could undermine the principles of parliamentary democracy.

The decision came in response to a rare reference from the President seeking clarity on the April decision imposing a three-month limit for dealing with the bills.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave said the court’s latest opinion “is actually diametrically opposed to the basic principle of parliamentary democracy”, arguing that it removes an important safeguard against executive delay.

“A decision is binding; an opinion is not binding,” he said, adding that the April decision had rightly held that the governor is subject to the constitutional mandate and cannot withhold consent indefinitely.

Describing the new opinion as undemocratic, Dave warned that the lack of clear deadlines opens the door to abuse.

“It is the duty of the Governor to assent to a bill as soon as possible. The words used in Article 200 are ‘as soon as possible’. Now you cannot say that there is no time limit,” he said. He said that parliamentary democracy “will become subject to the discretion of the Governor, and will in fact hijack democracy from the people.”

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra also shared similar concerns, saying the latest opinion “undermines” the April judgment, which had introduced a clear deadline of three months. He said the bench’s prior approach was a necessary step to ensure that the Governor does not stop the legislation.

“The fact that three judges have responded to this reference means that it actually dilutes the judgment that has been delivered,” he said.

“The permission cannot be withheld without any reason and a decision on this should be taken as soon as possible.”

While the Supreme Court has reiterated that there should not be unnecessary delays in consent and courts can intervene in cases of “prolonged, vague and indefinite” delays, Luthra said this broad guidance provides limited protection in practice.

“This is a step backward,” he said.

Dave further argued that the three-month limit is also too long and could allow political interference, especially in opposition-ruled states.

“If according to me, the Governor is going to sit on the bills for more than a week, why three months?” He said. “Ultimately, the voice of the people must be heard, and the Governor cannot stifle that voice by pushing these bills indefinitely.”

The Supreme Court opinion also made it clear that if a Bill is passed again without amendments, the Governor cannot withhold assent to it and he cannot act as “Super Chief Ministers”. But experts say that without fixed deadlines, the potential for constitutional friction remains high.

Check out the video for more info