[Answered] The Supreme Court’s move to fix a time limit for a Governor’s assent is a judicial nudge. Critically analyze its constitutional implications for the separation of powers and legislative functioning.

Introduction

In 2023–25, the Supreme Court mandated a three-month time limit for gubernatorial assent under Article 200, addressing delays in State legislation. This intervention foregrounds tensions between constitutional morality, federalism, and separation of powers.

Judicial Nudge: Context

1. Article 200 provides four options to a Governor: assent, withhold, return, or reserve for President.
2. Yet, Governors have often delayed action indefinitely, stalling State legislatures (e.g., Tamil Nadu Bills pending for years).
3. Supreme Court, in State of Punjab vs Governor (2023) and State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor (2025), emphasized Governors are bound by aid and advice of Council of Ministers under Article 163.

Constitutional Implications

Constitutional Implications For Separation of Powers

1. Judicial Overreach Debate: Critics argue fixing a timeline amounts to judicial legislation, as Articles 200–201 prescribe no time frame.
2. Judicial Necessity: Court drew upon the doctrine of constitutional pragmatism, similar to Maneka Gandhi (1978) expanding Article 21, to prevent constitutional paralysis.
3. Comparative Perspective: UK monarch and Canadian Governors General lack independent discretion; assent is a formal duty, not a discretionary veto.

 Constitutional Implications For Federal Balance

1. Judicial push ensures Governors—appointed by the Union—cannot act as political speed-breakers in State legislative processes.
2. Aligns with Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010), which cautioned against Governors misusing assent powers.
3. Prevents asymmetrical centralization, thus reinforcing cooperative federalism under the spirit of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Constitutional Implications For Legislative Functioning

1. Fixing timelines smoothens law-making, preventing indefinite dormancy of Bills.
2. Ensures legislative supremacy within the State sphere under the Seventh Schedule, shielding it from executive obstruction.
3. In practice, strengthens parliamentary accountability: laws must be tested on constitutionality by courts post-enactment, not stalled at the assent stage.

Risks and Limitations

1. Blurring Lines: Judicially prescribing timelines may set precedent for courts “filling gaps” in other constitutional silences, raising concerns of judicial activism.
2. Union Responsibility under Article 355: Instead of judicial directives, the Centre could ensure Governors discharge duties in line with constitutional norms.
3. Discretion in Exceptional Cases: Sarkaria Commission allowed rare gubernatorial discretion when Bills are “patently unconstitutional,” but judicial timelines may dilute this nuanced safeguard.

Way Forward

1. Codification through Constitutional Amendment or Parliamentary Law: Prescribe reasonable timelines while preserving judicial review.
2. Strengthen Conventions: As B.R. Ambedkar envisioned, Governors must act as constitutional heads, not political actors.
3. Judicial Minimalism: Courts should intervene only in exceptional situations, while Parliament evolves structural remedies.
4. Promote Cooperative Federalism: Through structured inter-governmental councils and dialogues, minimizing political stand-offs between Centre and States.

Conclusion

As Granville Austin termed India’s Constitution a “seamless web of cooperative federalism,” judicial nudges must ensure legislative vibrancy without judicial overreach, harmonizing separation of powers with constitutional morality and democratic governance.