Introduction 

The Supreme Court recently questioned whether it should remain passive when Governors indefinitely withhold assent to Bills, stalling elected legislatures. This issue, highlighted by Tamil Nadu’s Bills pending for four years, raises fundamental questions about judicial review, federalism, and democratic accountability.

Why in the News

Tamil Nadu’s unprecedented case of Bills pending for years has brought the Governor’s discretionary powers under sharp scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment imposing time limits on Governors is now contested by the Union as judicial overreach, sparking a crucial debate on separation of powers.

Why does the role of Governors come under scrutiny

1. Governor’s Inaction: Governors, appointed by the Union, are integral to State legislatures, yet their indefinite withholding of Bills undermines State autonomy.
2. Tamil Nadu Example: Crucial Bills remained pending for nearly four years without reasons being communicated, sparking judicial concern.
3. Democratic Will Thwarted: Prolonged silence from Governors makes elected legislatures ineffective.

How has the Supreme Court responded

1. CJI’s Question: Should the Court suspend its role as custodian of the Constitution while Governors block Bills indefinitely?
2. Judicial Review Precedent: The Court has struck down even constitutional amendments (e.g., 42nd Amendment) that sought to limit judicial review.
3. Concern of Vacuum: Justice P.S. Narasimha highlighted the risk of Bills hanging in limbo without timelines.

What is the Union Government’s stand

1. Encroachment Argument: Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued the Court’s April 8 order intruded into law-making, undermining Governors and the President.
2. Political Resolution: Inaction, according to the Union, should be resolved politically, not judicially.
3. Governor’s Unique Role: Unlike statutory authorities, Governors hold sui generis constitutional status, not bound by timelines.

Why is the tussle between judiciary and executive significant

1. Separation of Powers: Union argues judiciary must not micro-manage executive discretion.
2. Checks and Balances: CJI asserted that unchecked gubernatorial delay undermines democracy, and the Court cannot abdicate review.
3. Democratic Accountability: Legislators face people every five years; Governors do not. Hence judicial review is necessary.

What are the implications for federalism

1. Centre–State Tensions: Delays fuel mistrust between States and the Union.
2. Judicial Intervention: Without court oversight, States may face legislative logjams.
3. Limited Litigation: Union argues only “two or three States” have complained, but the principle has pan-India significance.

Way Forward: A structured framework for assent is necessary to prevent legislative paralysis. The Supreme Court’s suggested timelines strike a balance between constitutional discretion and democratic accountability. Moving ahead, three steps are essential:

1. Codifying Timelines: Parliament may consider amending the law or issuing guidelines to institutionalise clear deadlines.
2. Ensuring Accountability: Governors must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, barring exceptional constitutional reasons.
3. Judicial Oversight as Safeguard: Courts should step in only when gubernatorial inaction undermines constitutional morality, keeping political disputes largely within the legislative sphere.

Conclusion

Unchecked gubernatorial inaction risks turning elected assemblies powerless. While the Union calls for political remedies, the Court stresses its duty as constitutional guardian. The outcome will redefine the balance between State autonomy, judicial review, and the Governor’s role in India’s federal framework.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2022] Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.

Linkage: This issue links directly with the 2022 UPSC question as both highlight the constitutional checks on the Governor’s legislative powers. The re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval undermines democratic accountability. Hence, examining Governor’s ordinance powers is central to debates on federalism and executive overreach.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now