Judicial Nudge: Supreme Court Sets Three-Month Timeline for Governors to Decide on Legislative Bills
The Supreme Court has established a three-month timeline for Governors to take a final decision on Bills passed by State legislatures. This intervention addresses the issue of 'stuck legislative business' where Governors sit on Bills for years without exercising options under Article 200. The article discusses the scope of 'discretion' under Article 163, clarifying that Governors must generally act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. It highlights that Article 355 imposes a duty on the Union to ensure State governments function in accordance with the Constitution, justifying judicial intervention when constitutional duties are neglected.
Key Points
- Article 200 provides four options to the Governor: assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve for the President.
- The Court ruled that Governors cannot act independently of the Council of Ministers in legislative matters.
- The 3-month timeline aims to prevent the halting of the legislative machinery in states.
- Article 355 can be interpreted to allow the Union to ensure Governors perform their constitutional duties.
Exam Facts
- Article 200: Assent to Bills by the Governor.
- Article 163: Governor to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Article 355: Duty of the Union to protect States.
- Relevant Cases: Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016).
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.