Supreme Court to Examine Presidential Power Over State Legislation
The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre and all states on a Presidential Reference questioning a previous court verdict that imposed time limits on Governors and the President for giving assent to bills. This sets the stage for a crucial constitutional hearing on the scope of executive power over state legislatures. The issue has been a major source of friction between several state governments and the Centre, and the outcome will have profound implications for federalism.
Unpacked:
The previous Supreme Court verdict, in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case, set a three-month upper limit for both Governors and the President to act on bills. If the timelines were breached, states could seek judicial remedies, and prolonged inaction could result in deemed assent for the bills.
State governments have accused Governors, often appointed by the Centre, of delaying or refusing assent to bills for political reasons. This is seen as undermining state legislatures' autonomy, increasing tensions between states and the central government, especially when led by rival parties.
A Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on important questions of law or matters of public importance. The Court’s opinion is advisory and helps clarify constitutional ambiguities for the executive and legislature.
If the Court upholds mandatory timelines, it could strengthen state legislatures' powers and limit executive delays, reinforcing federal principles. Conversely, if timelines are struck down, it may expand executive discretion, potentially centralizing more power with the Centre and its appointed Governors.