Supreme Court's Directive on Timelines for Governors and Presidential Assent on State Bills
The Supreme Court has established a precedent by setting specific timelines for the President to act on Bills reserved for their consideration by a Governor. This directive aims to expedite the legislative process and enhance the efficiency of governance in India.
Key Directives by the Supreme Court
- Three-Month Timeline:
- The President must decide on Bills reserved by the Governor within three months from the date of reference.
- If there is any delay beyond this period, the reasons must be recorded and communicated to the respective state.
- Judicial Oversight:
- The Courts have the authority to intervene if constitutional functions are not executed within a reasonable time.
- State Governments can challenge the President's decision if assent is withheld without justification.
- Recommendations from Commissions:
- The Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions both recommended timelines for decisions under Article 201.
Background and Constitutional Provisions
Article 201 of the Indian Constitution outlines the process for the President's consideration of Bills reserved by the Governor, but it does not specify a time limit. This lack of a defined timeline has historically led to delays, prompting the Supreme Court to mandate the timeline.
- Article 201 Options:
- The President can either grant or withhold assent to a Bill.
- Past Recommendations:
- The Sarkaria Commission (1983) and Punchhi Commission (2007) highlighted the need for timely decision-making to improve Centre-State relations.
Implications of the Ruling
The ruling underscores the importance of prompt decision-making in the legislative process, aiming to prevent arbitrary delays that can undermine the federal structure of the Constitution.
- Non-Arbitrariness:
- Delays without justification are deemed arbitrary and capricious.
- Guidelines for Expeditious Disposal:
- Office Memorandums from the Ministry of Home Affairs prescribe a three-month timeline for Bills and a three-week timeline for urgent ordinances.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's directive to enforce a timeline for Presidential assent under Article 201 aims to ensure that legislative processes reflect the will of the people as expressed through State legislatures. It calls for collaboration between the Central and State Governments to adhere to these timelines to uphold the constitutional framework effectively.
