Supreme Court Slams Centre Over "False Alarm" Claim, Demands Accountability for Governors' Bill Delays

In a powerful and unequivocal stance, India's Supreme Court has delivered a stern rebuke to the Central government, dismantling its claims of a "false alarm" regarding the alarming delays by Governors in assenting to crucial state legislation. The apex court's scathing commentary came during the hearing of a petition filed by the Punjab government against its Governor, intensifying the spotlight on a simmering constitutional crisis that threatens the delicate balance of federalism.

The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y.

Chandrachud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, didn't mince words. They expressed profound skepticism over the Centre's attempts to downplay the issue, questioning why the Union government had failed to present a comprehensive affidavit detailing the sheer volume of bills languishing with Governors across various states, and for how long these legislative proposals have been gathering dust.

The Court pointed to a particularly egregious example: a bill that has remained unassented for a staggering four years, utterly demolishing the "false alarm" narrative.

The Chief Justice firmly reminded the Centre of the fundamental principles of constitutional governance. While a Governor certainly possesses the constitutional prerogative to withhold assent to a bill, this power does not translate into an indefinite veto or the ability to simply sit on legislation without action.

The Court underscored that the Governor's role is that of a "constitutional sentinel," a guardian of the constitution, not an "obstructionist" designed to impede the will of elected state legislatures. This distinction is crucial, drawing a clear line between constitutional review and executive paralysis.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, representing the Centre, attempted to defend the Governor's position, stating that the bills were "under examination." However, this defense was swiftly dismissed by the Supreme Court, which reiterated that the Governor's office is bound by constitutional obligations and must adhere to prescribed timelines and procedures.

The court's previous observations, emphasizing that Governors cannot "thwart" the legislative process and must generally act on the advice of the council of ministers, resonated strongly in this latest hearing.

This ongoing legal battle highlights a growing pattern of friction between state governments, particularly those ruled by opposition parties, and Governors appointed by the Centre.

The Supreme Court's intervention serves as a critical check on potential executive overreach and reinforces the imperative for constitutional functionaries to uphold their duties in a timely and impartial manner. The verdict in this and similar cases will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the future of cooperative federalism in India, demanding accountability and adherence to the spirit of the Constitution.