The importance of constitutional punctuality

Constitutional high offices must evolve guidelines to discharge their duties in a time-bound manner, safeguarding the will of the people.

Recently, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a resolution seeking to provide for a timeframe for Governors to act on the bills passed by the State Legislature. The motivation behind such a resolution was that the Governor of Tamil Nadu R.N. Ravi had withheld assent to as many as thirteen bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. Last week, the Supreme Court of India, while disposing a case filed by the State of Telangana against Governor Dr Tamilisai Soundararajan, remarked that Governors should not sit over Bills indefinitely. Taking this sentiment farther, the idea of constitutional punctuality need not be restricted to gubernatorial offices alone. All constitutional high offices including those of the President, Speakers and Judges must suo moto evolve guidelines to discharge duties in a timebound manner. 

In the resolution passed on 10 April 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly urged the Union Government and President to advise the Governor to decide on the bills passed by the State Legislatures within a reasonable time period. The resolution, proposed by Chief Minister MK Stalin argued that it was important to protect the sovereignty of the Legislatures and, ultimately, safeguard parliamentary democracy. 

Subsequently, the Chief Minister Stalin wrote to his counterparts in other opposition ruled States and encouraged them to pass similar resolutions in their Assemblies. So far, the Chief Ministers of Delhi, Kerala, and West Bengal have expressed their support for the resolution and its underlying principles. In the case of Telangana, the State had even filed a Writ Petition seeking direction from the Supreme Court to the Governor to decide on the Bills, passed by the Assembly, in a timely manner. It would be fair to say that time has come to design a new constitutional architecture that would regulate sovereign privileges to deliver on the demands for a timebound constitutional delivery mechanism.  

Evolving Constitutional Scheme

When the Constitution was adopted, in the consequence of the independence from British rule, some of the sovereign functions were retained, for sake of continuity in governance. As such, there was no time limit fixed for various authorities to discharge duties that arose out of the Constitutional scheme. It may be understood that the drafters of the Constitution, in their contemporaneous wisdom, expected Raj Bhavans to be nominated with those who are renowned for statesmanship and beyond the confines of political partisanship. 

Article 200 of the Constitution limits the options before the Governor to give assent to the Bill sent by the legislature or withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President. The nub of the issue is that Governors have wrongly understood the function to grant assent to have endowed them with some discretionary responsibility. However, the words used in the Constitution as well as a composite reading of the debates in the Constituent Assembly when this portion of the Constitution was deliberated and, subsequently, adopted portrays an altogether different interpretation. 

The original draft Article 175 moved for discussion in 1948 read as follows:

“Provided that where there is only one House of the Legislature and the Bill has been passed by that House, the Governor may, in his discretion, return the Bill together with a message requesting that the House will reconsider the Bill..”

While moving the amendment to this Article on 30 July 1949, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar says that there “can be no room for a Governor acting on discretion” and recommends to remove the phrase “the Governor, in his discretion”. Therefore, the final Article, adopted by the Constituent Assembly and embedded into the Constitution explicitly negates any discretionary power. This position has been fortified by a seven-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Samsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), wherein it was held the discretion of the Governor is extremely limited and even then such actions may act in a manner that is not detrimental to the interest of the state. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that Governor shall only act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Moreover, a simple and plain reading of the Article also highlights how it is some others have misunderstood the withholding of assent to mean holding back the Bill, an act which is colloquially referred as pocket veto. There is nothing farther from political and literary reality. The straightforward understanding of withholding assent means to return the Bill and not to hold back. The problem is accentuated as there is no time-limit prescribed to return the Bill and as such, Governors are unaccountable to the principles of time-bound governance. 

Time-bound Governance

In the United Kingdom, there has been no royal veto since 1708 when the assent to Scottish Militia Bill was vetoed by Queen Anne. Whereas in the United Staes of America, there is a time limit of ten days for the President to give assent or veto a bill. If the President does not sign or vetoes the bill within this time, it automatically becomes an Act. If the President vetoes and returns the bill to the Congress or Senate, then both the chambers of the Congress must override the veto for it to become a law. 

Over time, matters involving inexplicable delay in exercising powers by various authorities have been brought under the ambit of judicial review by constitutional courts. The Supreme Court, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Hon’ble Speaker (2020), issued a writ of mandamus to the Speaker of Meghalaya Legislative Assembly to decide on the disqualification petitions under 10th Schedule of the Constitution within a period of four weeks.  

When the case filed by the State of Telangana against the Governor, the Supreme Court found it fit to highlight the spirit of Article 200. While disposing the case on 24 April 2023, the Chief Justice of India’s court acknowledged that the words in Article 200 “as soon as possible after the presentation of the Bill” meant that constitutional authorities such as the Governor must appreciate the constitutional content and should necessarily bear this in mind. It would be appropriate for various constitutional authorities such as Governors exercising powers under Article 200 and Speakers acting as quasi-judicial tribunals under Tenth Schedule evolve strict timeframes and avoid unnecessary delays. Only such an approach will advance the constitutional scheme and safeguard the will of the people exercised through the legislatures. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

DMK Spokesperson and Advocate practising before the High Court of Madras.

(Inputs for this article was provided by Arun P.S.)

Link to the Article: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-importance-of-constitutional-punctuality/article66800908.ece