Constitutional Punctuality
Context:
- The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has approved a motion to establish a timeframe for governors to act on measures passed by the state legislature.
Recent changes:
- The Supreme Court of India stated in its ruling on a lawsuit brought by the State of Telangana against its Governor that governors should not put off passing bills for a lengthy period of time.
- To broaden this idea, the term “constitutional punctuality” need not simply refer to gubernatorial positions.
- All legally powerful positions, including the President of India and the Speakers of the Assemblies, are required to separately create regulations for completing their duties on time.
- The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly encouraged the President and Union Government to instruct the Governor to make a decision about the state legislatures’ passed legislation within a reasonable length of time.
- The chief ministers of Delhi, Kerala, and West Bengal have all expressed support for the resolution and its guiding principles so far.
Constitutional structure evolving:
- Some of the sovereign powers were retained after the Constitution’s adoption in order to maintain continuity in governance. There was therefore no time limit for the various authorities to finish their obligations associated with the constitutional framework.
- Article 200 of the Constitution now places restrictions on the Governor’s power to assent to a measure sent by the legislature, withhold assent, or reserve a bill for the President’s consideration. The fundamental issue is that because governors didn’t understand the purpose of providing consent, they were given significant discretionary power.
- The Governor had the option to send the Bill back with a message asking the House to have another look at it, according to the original version of Article 175 of the Constitution. Following B R Ambedkar’s advice, the final Article explicitly rejects any latitude.
- It was ruled in Shamsher Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab (1974) that the governor’s discretion is severely circumscribed and that, even in these unusual circumstances, the governor must act in a way that does not jeopardize the interests of the state.
- The Supreme Court has moreover repeatedly decided that the Governor may only act with the approval and guidance of the Council of Ministers.
- The phrase “withholds assent therefrom” has been purposely misinterpreted to mean withholding approval of the Bill, sometimes known as a pocket veto. “Withholding assent” may only be simply interpreted to mean “returning the Bill,” not “holding back.”
Quick-response governance:
- The Telangana State’s lawsuit against the Governor was justified, the Supreme Court ruled, and should have focused on the spirit of Article 200. In a recent case decision, the Court recognized the constitutional significance of the words “as soon as practicable after the presentation of the Bill” in Article 200 and stated that governors should naturally take this into account.
- In order to avoid unnecessary delays, it would be preferable for numerous constitutional institutions, such as Governors exercising their duties under Article 200 and Speakers functioning as quasi-judicial tribunals under the Tenth Schedule, to set strict timelines.
Conclusion:
- These circumstances lead to the logical conclusion that a new constitutional architecture must now be created in order to meet the demands of a time-bound constitutional delivery mechanism.
