Centre Argues Against Imposing Timelines on Governors' Assent to Bills
The Union government has told the Supreme Court that imposing fixed deadlines on Governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures would disrupt the constitutional balance. In written submissions for a Presidential Reference hearing, the Centre argued that these roles are 'politically plenary' and not subject to judicial timelines. It contended that reading such a limitation into the Constitution would amount to an amendment by the judiciary, potentially leading to 'constitutional disorder' by allowing one government organ to assume another's powers.
Unpacked:
Under Articles 200 and 201, Governors can assent to, withhold assent from, or reserve state bills for the President; the President can then assent to or withhold assent from reserved bills. Both must provide written reasons for withholding assent, and Governors must assent if a reconsidered bill is passed again by the legislature.
Some state governments and critics argue that delays in assent can stall important legislation, effectively allowing the Centre or its appointees to block state laws indefinitely. The Union government, however, sees deadlines as a disruption of constitutional roles and a threat to the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court has held that neither the Governor nor the President has absolute veto powers and that their decisions must be reasoned. However, the Court is currently examining whether it can impose deadlines or regulate these constitutional roles where the Constitution is silent on timelines.
If fixed deadlines are imposed, it could limit executive discretion but may also lead to faster state lawmaking. The Union fears this could upset the constitutional balance by allowing the judiciary to encroach on executive powers, possibly resulting in institutional conflict or 'constitutional disorder'.