The Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai stated that Governors should act as guides and philosophers to State governments.
The Kerala government argued for a collaborative relationship between the Governor and the State government.
Several States, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Telangana, and West Bengal, have raised concerns about delays in Governors granting assent to Bills.
The Supreme Court is hearing a Presidential Reference on whether specific timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for acting on State Bills.
Detailed Insights:
The debate centers on the Governor's role in State legislatures, with some arguing that expansive powers could create a dyarchy, undermining the elected legislature's authority.
Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution are central to the discussion, outlining the process for Governors and the President to grant assent to Bills.
The Supreme Court previously set a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to decide on Bills, but this is now under review due to concerns about increased litigation.
The Presidential Reference aims to provide clarity on the constitutional obligations of Governors and the President regarding State Bills, ensuring the smooth functioning of governance.
Some legal experts suggest the Supreme Court should set specific timelines for Governors to act on Bills to provide clarity and certainty, preventing delays and potential conflicts.
Article 143 gives the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction, allowing it to provide opinions to the President on matters of public importance, which can have persuasive value.
Key Concepts Involved:
Dyarchy: A system of government where two independent authorities share power.
Presidential Reference: A mechanism under the Indian Constitution where the President seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on a question of law or fact.
Article 200: Constitutional provision dealing with assent to bills by the Governor.
Article 201: Relates to bills reserved for consideration by the President.