Governor’s Assent: A Shocking Failure Explained in 4 Key Challenges

Purushothaman Nambudiri vs State of Kerala (1962)

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai strongly observed that it will not remain a silent spectator if a constitutional authority like a Governor fails to discharge his duties. This remark came during the hearing of a Presidential Reference related to the prolonged delays by Governors in granting assent to crucial bills passed by State legislatures, especially in non-BJP-ruled States.

KEY POINTS: Purushothaman Nambudiri vs State of Kerala (1962)

Issue at Hand:

• There is growing tension between State governments and Governors over delays in clearing bills, including important welfare and policy laws.
• Several non-BJP-ruled States have accused Governors of politically motivated inaction.
• The matter was referred to the Supreme Court through a Presidential Reference for constitutional interpretation.

Supreme Court’s Observation:

• CJI B.R. Gavai emphasized that no constitutional authority is above the law, regardless of their position.
• The Court is the custodian of the Constitution and will intervene if other wings of democracy fail to perform their duties.
• Highlighted the doctrine of separation of powers, stating that while judicial activism should not become judicial overreach, the Court cannot remain powerless.

Union Government’s Argument:

• The Centre argued that the judiciary must not interfere in the functioning of Governors or the President, as these are executive powers.
• Warned against judicial encroachment into the domain of the executive and legislature.

Context of the Case:

• Dispute arises from Governors withholding or delaying assent to bills related to critical sectors such as education, health, and welfare schemes.
• Some States claim this undermines federalism and State autonomy under the Constitution.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

• Article 200 (Assent to Bills):

A Governor can:

• Give assent,
• Withhold assent,
• Reserve the bill for President’s consideration, or
• Return the bill for reconsideration (only once).

The Constitution does not prescribe a time limit, leading to indefinite delays.

• Judicial Precedents:

• In earlier cases like Purushothaman Nambudiri vs State of Kerala (1962), the Court upheld that Governors must act in a reasonable time.
• The Court has previously directed Governors to avoid political misuse of their discretionary powers.

CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

• Absence of a clear timeline for Governors to act on bills.
• Increasing politicization of the Governor’s role, especially in opposition-ruled States.
• Federal tensions between the Centre and States.
• Risk of judicial overreach if courts directly order Governors to act.

WAY FORWARD

• Parliament or the Supreme Court could lay down guidelines or timelines for Governors to act on bills.
• Strengthen cooperative federalism through dialogue between the Centre, States, and constitutional authorities.
• Ensure that the Governor’s office remains apolitical and functions in the spirit of the Constitution.
• Possible constitutional amendment to clearly define Governor’s responsibilities and timelines.