Roadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction Briefly introduce the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, its establishment (2000, institutionalized in 2015), and its role in upholding ethical conduct among MPs. State the purpose of the committee in ensuring accountability and fostering public trust in parliamentary ...
Model Answer Introduction The role of Governors in withholding assent to bills passed by state assemblies has been a contentious issue, with several recent instances highlighting delays in granting assent. The discretion afforded to Governors under the Indian Constitution has raised concerns about iRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
The role of Governors in withholding assent to bills passed by state assemblies has been a contentious issue, with several recent instances highlighting delays in granting assent. The discretion afforded to Governors under the Indian Constitution has raised concerns about its potential for misuse, leading to questions about whether a prescribed time limit should be imposed for Governors to either approve or reject bills.
Instances of Governors Delaying Assent to State Assembly Bills
- Tamil Nadu NEET Exemption Bill (2023): The Governor withheld assent to this bill for over a year, prompting concerns about political interference and undermining the autonomy of the state government.
- Kerala Lokayukta Amendment Bill (2022): The Governor refused to assent to this bill, citing concerns about its constitutionality and its impact on the functioning of the anti-corruption watchdog.
Constitutional Veto Powers of the Governor
- Article 200: This provision grants Governors the power to withhold assent, reserve the bill for the President, or grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. It offers a significant degree of discretion, which can be exercised based on the Governor’s interpretation of the bill.
- Article 201: If a bill is presented again after being returned by the Governor, the Governor must give assent if it is passed once more by the state legislature.
Should There Be a Specified Time Limit for Governors to Accept/Reject Bills?
Yes:
- Promotes Accountability: A time limit ensures Governors act promptly and transparently, preventing arbitrary delays or political interference.
- Protects Legislative Autonomy: A clear timeframe for decision-making would safeguard state legislatures’ autonomy by ensuring timely responses.
- Reduces Uncertainty: Setting a deadline for assent would reduce ambiguity in the legislative process.
- Strengthens Federalism: Time limits can foster a more balanced and functional relationship between state and central governments.
- Aligns with Democratic Principles: A timely decision from the Governor supports democratic processes by allowing elected representatives to execute their duties without unnecessary delays. The Supreme Court’s Nabam Rebia judgment (2016) emphasized that the Governor’s discretion under Article 163 is not arbitrary.
No:
- Impeded Deliberation: A time limit might hinder thorough analysis, leading to rushed decisions that could overlook important issues.
- Limited Need: Instances of delay are relatively rare, and imposing a blanket time limit may not be necessary.
- Potential for Judicial Intervention: Setting time limits could invite legal challenges, further complicating the legislative process.
- Discretion by Design: Governors’ discretionary powers are crucial for maintaining federal balance and democratic governance.
- Respecting the President’s Role: Constitutional provisions provide greater powers to the Centre and the President, which might still override a Governor’s decision.
Conclusion
While the imposition of time limits could streamline the legislative process and enhance the autonomy of state assemblies, the current system respects the Governor’s role in ensuring constitutional stability. As the Rajamannar Committee suggests, Governors should act as constitutional heads of state rather than as agents of the Centre, and any reforms, including time limits, would require constitutional amendments. Until such reforms are considered, maintaining a balance between autonomy and federal integrity remains essential.
See less
Model Answer Introduction The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, established in 2000 and institutionalized in 2015, upholds ethical conduct among MPs, ensuring public trust. Similarly, the Privileges Committee safeguards parliamentary authority and dignity. Both committees play pivotal roles in maintainingRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, established in 2000 and institutionalized in 2015, upholds ethical conduct among MPs, ensuring public trust. Similarly, the Privileges Committee safeguards parliamentary authority and dignity. Both committees play pivotal roles in maintaining order and morality within the legislative framework.
Lok Sabha’s Ethics Committee
Composition and Purpose
Chairperson and Procedures
Key Roles
Privileges Committee
Mandate and Scope
Comparative Overview
Similarities and Overlaps
Conclusion
Together, the Ethics and Privileges Committees are vital pillars in parliamentary governance, reinforcing ethical behavior and protecting institutional dignity. Their distinct yet interrelated mandates ensure a balanced approach to maintaining trust, accountability, and respect within the legislative domain.
See less