The decision by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court that timelines cannot be prescribed for the president or the governors when it comes to them assenting to legislative bills is a heartening attempt on the part of the court to uphold the constitutional principle of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. A five-judge bench of the highest court — the outgoing chief justice of India, the CJI-designate and a future CJI sat on it — agreed that even though the president or the governors cannot withhold a decision pertaining to bills for “perpetuity”, the holders of these constitutional offices enjoy discretionary privileges when giving their nod to them. What makes this particular judgment interesting is its backstory. Some Opposition-ruled states — Bengal is among them — had approached the apex court alleging that governors were in the habit of sitting on bills on account of political motives. In response, a two-judge bench had set a timeline of one month for the holders of such high office to act on bills. Then the Centre, through a presidential reference, sought a clarification from the Supreme Court regarding gubernatorial powers on the matter. The Constitution bench of the highest court responded with this judgment last week.
By acknowledging that discretion by the governor under Article 200 is nonjusticiable, the Supreme Court has certainly adhered to the letter and the spirit of an established constitutional code. The question, though, is this: can the governors’ office now be expected to act impartially and in consonance with propriety? This is not idle speculation. The gubernatorial chair, more often than not, functions as a political office and is at the beck and call of the ruling regime. This servility has been an unfortunate but constant element of the republic’s politics since Independence and it continues till the present day. The likely outcome of the Supreme Court’s recent intervention on the matter will be a rise in the number of litigations between governors and states in an already overburdened judiciary. This is because political tussles between governors and Opposition parties in power in states are unlikely to end despite their inimical impact on India’s federal edifice. The Supreme Court has, as usual, set noble standards on a contentious matter. It is now the turn of the governor’s office to reciprocate.