Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Timelines for Governor's Assent to Bills
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a Presidential reference concerning whether courts can set timelines for Governors and the President to assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The court questioned if it could "sit idle" when a constitutional authority fails its duty, highlighting a critical issue of separation of powers. The outcome will have significant implications for federalism and the relationship between the executive and legislative branches across Indian states.
Unpacked:
Concerns have arisen about delays or inaction by Governors and the President in assenting to bills passed by state legislatures, which can stall governance and legislative intent. This has led to calls for judicial intervention to ensure constitutional authorities fulfill their duties promptly.
India's separation of powers divides responsibilities among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent concentration of power. The court's potential role in setting timelines tests the boundaries of judicial intervention in executive functions, raising questions about checks and balances and constitutional duties.
If the Supreme Court sets timelines, it could strengthen state legislative autonomy by ensuring timely assent to bills. However, it may also increase judicial oversight over executive authorities, potentially shifting the balance between state and central powers within India's federal structure.
While the Supreme Court has addressed issues of executive inaction in various contexts, direct intervention in setting timelines for assent to bills is unprecedented. Past rulings have clarified constitutional duties but have generally respected the separation of powers, making this case particularly significant.