No Constitutional Provision to Impose Deadlines on the President or Governors

Dr. Sudhakara Hosalli

In a rare move, the Supreme Court recently imposed a three-month deadline on the Governor and, by implication, the President, while delivering its verdict in a case related to a constitutional dispute between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Governor. In response, the President has, under Article 143 of the Constitution, referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking an advisory opinion on the exercise of constitutional powers.

These two developments have prompted a fresh review of constitutional provisions. The President has the authority to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on matters of public importance under Article 143.

In this context, the focus turns to the jurisdiction and scope of the Supreme Court’s powers. During the drafting of the Constitution, such nuanced issues were deeply debated. Each provision was finalized after extensive deliberation.

For example, the scope and extent of the powers of the President and Governors were debated multiple times between May and November 1949. Clear and forward-looking provisions were crafted to maintain the balance of power among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, while preventing overreach by any one organ.

While the Supreme Court retains the authority to invalidate legislative or executive actions that violate constitutional provisions, it does not have the power to curtail the constitutionally granted powers of other institutions.

Dr. Ambedkar’s Stand Against Curtailing Governor’s Powers

On June 2, 1949, Congress member Prof. K.T. Shah moved an amendment arguing that entrusting the Governor with all executive powers in the name of the state was inconsistent with the ideals of a democratic republic. He proposed curtailing the Governor’s powers.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, however, opposed the amendment, asserting that conducting executive functions in the name of the Governor was a well-discussed and agreed-upon principle. His stance was supported by members like Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena and K.M. Munshi.

Though members such as Rohini Kumar Choudhury and K.V. Kamat expressed concerns over excessive powers being given to the Governor, Ambedkar clarified these provisions by introducing Article 147. The draft article was placed before the Constituent Assembly for voting and was duly adopted. This reflects the framers’ intent to uphold the constitutional role and powers of the Governor.

The Constitutional Powers of the Supreme Court

• Article 131 empowers the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between the Centre and States.
• Article 140 allows Parliament to confer supplementary powers on the Supreme Court by law.
• Article 143 empowers the President to seek advisory opinions from the Supreme Court.
• Article 147 grants the Supreme Court the authority to interpret constitutional provisions.

Constitutional Powers of the President and Governors

• Article 160 allows the President to assign certain executive functions to Governors under special circumstances.
• Article 161 empowers the Governor to grant pardons and commute sentences, even those pronounced by High Courts.
• Article 163 allows Governors to exercise discretionary powers even when a Council of Ministers is present.
• Article 163(2) stipulates that when a question arises about the exercise of discretion, the Governor’s decision is final.
• Article 163(3) bars any court from inquiring into the advice given by the Council of Ministers to the Governor.
• Article 166 mandates that all executive actions of the state government shall be taken in the name of the Governor.
• Article 167 makes it obligatory for the Council of Ministers to keep the Governor informed about all administrative and legislative affairs.
• Article 167(b) requires the Council of Ministers to furnish any information sought by the Governor.
• Article 200 provides the Governor with the power to assent to, withhold, or reserve a bill passed by the State Legislature for the President’s consideration.
• Under Article 200, if a bill is passed again by the Legislature, the Governor cannot withhold assent unless it violates constitutional provisions.
• Article 201 allows the Governor to return any bill for the President’s reconsideration, and after such reconsideration, the bill may be sent back to the President again.

Special Protection to the President and Governors

• Article 361 provides immunity to the President and Governors from legal proceedings for actions taken during their tenure.
• Article 361(2) prohibits the initiation or continuation of any criminal proceedings against them during their term.
• Article 361(3) prevents courts from ordering their arrest during their term of office.
• Article 361A bars civil or criminal proceedings against them regarding publication of proceedings in Parliament or State Legislature.
• Article 365 empowers the President to recommend emergency action if a state fails to comply with directives from the Union.

These provisions offer specific protections and privileges to the President and Governors. While they may be advised to act swiftly on bills passed by the legislature, the Constitution does not empower any authority to impose a binding deadline.

However, the recent verdict by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan) on April 8, 2025, in the dispute between the Tamil Nadu Government and the Governor, appears to conflict with constitutional provisions by prescribing a three-month deadline.

Though Article 147 authorizes the Supreme Court to interpret constitutional provisions, it must be noted that the Constitution does not permit the imposition of time limits on assent to bills. Such a judicial directive could trigger a constitutional crisis among the legislative, executive, and judiciary.

Therefore, the two-judge bench’s decision requires constitutional review under Article 137, which allows the Supreme Court to revisit and revise its own judgments through a Constitution Bench.

In practice, since legal proceedings cannot be initiated against the President or Governors during their term, the enforcement of such a deadline is not practically viable.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Tamil Nadu Government issued Gazette notifications on bills previously withheld by the Governor, bypassing the requirement for gubernatorial assent. Such a move undermines the constitutional authority and unity of the Indian Union.

Ultimately, the judiciary must ensure that its interpretations do not inadvertently create divisions within the country or weaken the federal structure. The current verdict, if not reconsidered, could set a dangerous precedent with long-term constitutional implications.

Sources
Constituent Assembly Debates, Pages 4–26, Volume 6

Constitution of India, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs

Pages – 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 68, 69, 73, 157