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

1. 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.
2. 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

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. Promotes Accountability: A time limit ensures Governors act promptly and transparently, preventing arbitrary delays or political interference.
2. Protects Legislative Autonomy: A clear timeframe for decision-making would safeguard state legislatures’ autonomy by ensuring timely responses.
3. Reduces Uncertainty: Setting a deadline for assent would reduce ambiguity in the legislative process.
4. Strengthens Federalism: Time limits can foster a more balanced and functional relationship between state and central governments.
5. 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:

1. Impeded Deliberation: A time limit might hinder thorough analysis, leading to rushed decisions that could overlook important issues.
2. Limited Need: Instances of delay are relatively rare, and imposing a blanket time limit may not be necessary.
3. Potential for Judicial Intervention: Setting time limits could invite legal challenges, further complicating the legislative process.
4. Discretion by Design: Governors’ discretionary powers are crucial for maintaining federal balance and democratic governance.
5. 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.