Supreme Court hearing: Governors’ deadline case continues live
presently hearing the Presidential reference concerning the timelines within which Governors must act on Bills passed by State legislatures, a significant constitutional question.
The Supreme Court continued hearing the Presidential reference on whether Governors can indefinitely hold onto Bills without taking a decision.
Solicitor General’s stance
At the outset, the SG strongly defended the Governor’s powers under Article 200 of the Constitution. He argued that the text of the Constitution, the federal scheme, and judicial interpretations all confirm that the Governor’s determination under this provision is broad, discretionary, and essentially non-justiciable. In other words, courts should not interfere with how or when a Governor decides on Bills sent by the state legislature.
The SG stressed that while conventions of constitutional statesmanship and the balance between federal and unitary principles guide the Governor’s role, these cannot be converted into judicially enforceable timelines. “One constitutional authority cannot prescribe a time limit for another constitutional authority,” he contended, emphasizing that the framers deliberately imposed deadlines for certain functions (such as elections or assent to Money Bills) while consciously leaving others open-ended.
CJI pushes back
The CJI, however, was not convinced. “No, no,” he intervened firmly, “but if there is a wrong, there has to be a solution. This court is an organ of the Constitution.
In raising this point, the CJI hinted that constitutional principles cannot be rendered meaningless by inaction, and that the judiciary has a responsibility to ensure accountability in governance.
Judicial reflections
Justice Narasimha then drew a crucial distinction. He acknowledged that while the court may not be in a position to fix a specific time frame, there must still be some process to prevent legislative paralysis. “Okay, we cannot specify a time limit,” he said, “but a process needs to be worked out. How can it be that a Bill is not acted upon at all? How long can this dead end continue?”
Solicitor General responds
The SG maintained his position, insisting that even if judicial conscience was troubled, that did not create jurisdiction where none existed. “What you are pained at,” he told the Bench, “may be a justification for laying down a time limit, but justification alone does not confer jurisdiction.”
He posed a rhetorical question: “Can one constitutional authority prescribe a time limit for another? The framers were fully conscious that some functions required deadlines, while others did not.”
Reference to Shamsher Singh case
The judgment noted that while the Governor generally acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, certain functions—such as reporting constitutional breakdown under Article 356 or returning Bills under Article 200—are exceptions where discretion exists.
However, the SG also highlighted that this discretion is not meant to create a “parallel administration” within the State. The Governor must still act with constitutional propriety and in the best interests of the State.
The central dilemma
The day’s exchanges revealed the central tension: while the Union argues that Governors’ discretion cannot be judicially constrained by deadlines, the Bench is clearly concerned about indefinite inaction. The Justices seemed inclined to explore whether the court can at least lay down a guiding process to prevent abuse of discretion, without crossing into the domain of prescribing rigid timelines.
The debate will continue as the Bench seeks to strike a balance between respecting constitutional design and ensuring that legislative business does not grind to a halt because of executive silence.