In a significant ruling on April 8, the Supreme Court clarified that its directive to set timelines for Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures does not amount to “judicial overreach.” The decision came in response to the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against Governor R N Ravi, who had delayed action on several bills. The Court stated that if a Governor chooses to withhold assent, they must return the bill with recommendations within three months. Similarly, if the bill is reserved for the President, the Governor must do so within three months, and any bill sent back after reconsideration must be assented to within one month.
The Supreme Court emphasized that these timelines are necessary to prevent indefinite delays in the legislative process and to avoid a “pocket veto” situation, where a Governor could block legislation by not taking timely action. The Court asserted that this directive does not violate Article 200 of the Constitution but rather ensures that the legislative process remains functional and effective. The ruling reinforces that the Governor, in most situations, is constitutionally bound to act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
The bench further clarified that its prescription of a time limit does not alter the Constitution’s framework. It drew comparisons with other countries, like the US and Pakistan, where similar checks exist. The Court also reiterated that the Governor’s discretionary powers under Article 200 are limited and subject to judicial review. This ruling aims to strike a balance between gubernatorial discretion and accountability, ensuring that the democratic process at the state level is not obstructed without just cause.
Post Your Comments