Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Limits Governor's Power to Hold Back Bills

The Indian Supreme Court has given a landmark judgment, creating a precedent for the behavior of governors in states. The judgment was issued as a response to a plea filed by the government of Tamil Nadu against its Governor, who had kept various bills pending for a long time. The court stated that the Governor cannot keep bills pending indefinitely and has to act within a reasonable time limit. 

The Supreme Court judgment

A three-judge bench consisting of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan adjudicated that governors and the President need to arrive at a decision on bills submitted to them within three months. The judgment was a major upending of Centre-state power parity, especially if bills are delayed with governors. The court reiterated that the power of withholding assent has to be exercised within a reasonable time and that the President cannot employ a "pocket veto".

Key highlights of the judgment

•  Three-Month Limit for Decision: The President and governors have to decide on bills within three months.
•  No Pocket Veto: The President cannot employ a pocket veto and has to either give or withhold assent.
• Justification of Delay: Where there is delay beyond the three-month period, there must be valid reasons cited and communicated to the affected state.
• Judicial Review: Judicial review applies to the exercise by the President in accordance with Article 201.

Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Supreme Court has far-reaching implications for the working of governors in states. It prevents governors from abusing their powers to delay bills indefinitely, thus weakening the legislative process. The judgment also emphasizes the need for timely decision-making in the legislative process.

Constitutional Provisions

Article 200 of the Constitution prescribes the powers of the Governor with respect to bills enacted by the state legislature. The Governor can assent to a bill, withhold assent, or return the bill for re-consideration. But the Constitution does not prescribe a time limit for the Governor to make a decision. The gap is filled by the Supreme Court's judgment that prescribes a three-month time limit. The Supreme Court ruling is a welcome move towards ensuring that governors do not misuse their powers and the legislative process is not eroded. The ruling will have long-term implications for the functioning of governors in states and will contribute to a more harmonious relationship between the Centre and states.