Supreme Court Examines Constitutional Timelines for Governors to Assent to Bills
The Supreme Court is hearing a petition regarding the discretionary powers of Governors to withhold or delay assent to bills passed by State legislatures. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor has four options when presented with a bill, but the text does not specify a timeline. This has led to 'pocket vetoes' in several Opposition-ruled states. Legal experts and previous commissions, like the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, have recommended fixed timelines (e.g., six months) for decisions. The Court's upcoming judgment in May 2025 is expected to clarify whether judicial review can be applied to such delays.
Key Points
- Article 200 outlines the Governor's options: give assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve for the President.
- Article 163(1) states the Governor must generally act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The Sarkaria Commission (1987) and Punchhi Commission (2010) suggested timelines to prevent political misuse of the Governor's office.
- The Supreme Court has previously held in the Shamsher Singh case (1974) that the Governor does not exercise personal discretion in granting assent.
Exam Facts
- Relevant Constitutional Articles: Article 200 (Assent to Bills) and Article 163 (Discretionary powers).
- Commissions: Sarkaria Commission (1987) and Punchhi Commission (2010).
- Key Case: Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974).
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.