[Answered] The lack of a fixed timeline for a Governor’s assent to a Bill challenges India’s federal structure. Critically analyze the constitutional and political implications of this issue for Centre-State relations.

Introduction

India’s federal structure, recognized as a basic feature (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973), faces strain as Governors delay assent to Bills. The April 2025 Supreme Court judgment prescribing timelines reflects judicial intervention to preserve federal balance.

Constitutional Position

1. Article 200: Governor may assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve for President’s consideration.
2. Article 201: President may assent or withhold assent; no timeline prescribed.
3. Article 163(1): Governor acts on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in rare discretionary matters.

The Constitution only requires that a Bill returned be done “as soon as possible,” creating scope for indefinite delays.

Judicial Interpretation

1. Shamsher Singh (1974): Governor bound by ministerial advice.
2. Nabam Rebia (2016): Governor cannot act against the aid and advice of elected government.
3. K.M. Singh (2020): SC fixed a three-month timeline for Speakers in disqualification matters.
4. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025): SC held that “Governor shall” implies mandatory duty; prescribed three-month timeline for assent or reservation.

Commission Recommendations

1. Sarkaria Commission (1987): Discretion to reserve Bills should be exercised only in “rare cases of patent unconstitutionality.”
2. Punchhi Commission (2010): Governors should decide within six months.
3. MHA OM (2016): Advised Governors to act “without undue delay.”

Constitutional & Political Implications

1. Erosion of Federalism: Delays undermine the popular mandate of elected State legislatures. Contravenes cooperative federalism, emphasized in SR Bommai (1994) as essential for Centre-State harmony.
2. Politicisation of the Governor’s Office: Governors often act as agents of the Centre, selectively delaying Bills in opposition-ruled States (e.g., Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab). Fuels demand for abolition of gubernatorial post (raised by C.N. Annadurai, Nitish Kumar).
3. Judicial Overreach vs. Necessity: Centre argues SC cannot impose timelines absent in Constitution. However, judiciary has previously stepped in to ensure constitutional morality when institutions delay decisions (e.g., Election Commission, Speakers).
4. Impact on Governance: Key reforms on education, health, reservation, agriculture face paralysis. Example: Kerala University Laws Amendment Bill (2022) delayed, hampering academic reforms.
5. Centre-State Tensions: Opposition-ruled States argue deliberate delays disrespect democratic mandate. Raises questions of legitimacy of the Governor in a parliamentary democracy.

Way Forward

1. Codify timelines via constitutional amendment or legislation.
2. Institutionalize inter-governmental platforms (like Inter-State Council) for resolving disputes.
3. Follow Punchhi Commission’s six-month guideline as convention.
4. Ensure appointment of Governors with non-partisan stature, respecting Bommai principles.

Conclusion

As Granville Austin noted, India’s Constitution rests on “cooperative federalism.” Fixing timelines for Governors’ assent is imperative to uphold democracy, strengthen State autonomy, and prevent Centre-State relations from degenerating into political battles.