How Timelines for Presidential Assent Strengthen Democracy While Sparking Judicial Overreach Concerns

The ruling was prompted by cases where Governors, notably in Tamil Nadu, delayed assent to bills, stalling state legislation. The Court invoked Article 142, granting it powers to ensure “complete justice,” to clear 10 stalled bills, a move that has drawn both praise and criticism.

Why It Strengthens Democracy and Federalism

The verdict enhances the legislative autonomy of elected state governments by preventing central authorities from arbitrarily delaying or blocking bills. It ensures that Governors, as constitutional figureheads, respect the mandate of state legislatures and act within a fixed timeline—one month for assent or reservation, three months for Presidential assent. This reduces discretionary obstruction and promotes accountability, as Governors are now subject to judicial scrutiny through writ petitions.

Legal experts have praised the ruling as a “victory for democracy, federalism, and good governance.” By curbing delays, it upholds the will of elected state governments, reinforcing the federal structure where states have significant legislative powers. The decision also reaffirms that constitutional functionaries like Governors and the President are not above judicial review, ensuring checks and balances.

Concerns of Judicial Overreach

Critics, including Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, argue that the Court’s use of Article 142 to clear bills bypasses the constitutional roles of Governors and the President, amounting to judicial enforcement rather than review. By setting strict timelines and directing assent to bills, the Court is seen as encroaching on executive functions, potentially undermining the separation of powers. Some legal scholars contend that this sets a precedent for judicial intervention in areas reserved for the executive and legislature, raising concerns about the balance of power in India’s federal structure.

Impact on State-Governor Dynamics

The ruling shifts the dynamics between state governments and Governors. Governors can no longer delay bills indefinitely, fostering smoother legislative processes. The threat of judicial oversight compels Governors to act transparently, reducing friction with state governments. However, the Court’s intervention may strain relations if Governors perceive it as diminishing their constitutional authority.

This verdict is a pivotal moment for Indian federalism, balancing state autonomy with constitutional checks. While it empowers state legislatures, the debate over judicial overreach highlights the need for clarity in the roles of constitutional authorities. The ruling’s long-term impact will depend on how it shapes future interactions between states, Governors, and the judiciary.