The role of governors has come in for sharp questioning, more so in opposition-ruled states. Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling brings into sharp focus governors delaying legislative bills and indicates a disturbing trend of abdication of responsibility that in turn undermines the spirit of democracy. Inordinate and unexplained delays in clearing bills speak of a politically influenced system that mars our federal governance system.
The Supreme Court ruled decisively that governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by state legislatures, emphasising that they must act "as soon as possible." This judgment stems from a long-standing problem where bills languished on governors’ desks for months, in some cases years. The court observed that such delays by governors constitute a roadblock to lawmaking and violate the principles of parliamentary democracy.
This ruling reinforces the expectation that governors should function in accordance with the advice of elected state governments. It is a stark reminder that the authority vested in governors is not meant to be abused for political ends. Instead, it is a position that bears the weight of ensuring democratic processes are followed.
The Supreme Court's intervention, which established timelines for decisions on disqualification petitions, highlights a need for accountability at the level of the governor's office. The judicial reminder that governors' discretionary powers are subject to review is a critical assertion of democratic norms. It implies that the governor's actions should be aligned with the principles of parliamentary democracy, rather than serving as a tool for political machinations.
Moreover, the tendency of governors to withhold assent in a manner that undermines elected governments raises serious questions about the sanctity of the office. Instances in which governors have stalled on significant bills passed by the assembly, often under the guise of constitutional prerogative, reveal an unsettling trend where democratic institutions are being used to stifle the voice of the opposition and inhibit effective governance.
In Kerala, there are delays of 16 to 18 months reflecting ‘undemocratic’ practices with a sentiment that governance is being compromised in favour of political gain. As various states turn to the Supreme Court to address grievances about such abuses of power, it becomes apparent that governors must recognize their role not as political actors, but as arbiters who facilitate the democratic process.
This ruling is only one facet of a larger issue. There are troubling indications that even constitutional authorities like speakers of Legislative Assemblies are not merely passive figures in the political landscape but actively partisan actors, particularly when it comes to disqualification petitions and defections. In states like Goa and Telangana, speakers have delayed hearings on petitions challenging defections, often prolonging these processes until the end of the legislative terms. Such actions effectively deny the petitioners any recourse to challenge the political calculus that may have led to significant shifts in party allegiance. This manipulation of the timing reflects a glaring lack of impartiality, contradicting the foundational ethos of democracy, which relies on fairness and justice.
The current Supreme Court ruling carries a broader message on the need for accountability from those in positions of power, especially in a political landscape where the opposition is often under siege. It calls for re-examining the role of governors, emphasizing collaboration rather than confrontation. To uphold democracy, governors must commit themselves to their constitutional responsibilities. In doing so, they will not only regain the public trust but also reinforce the foundational ideals of democracy that have been eroding in the face of partisan politics.
