How does the Supreme Court's observation on Governors sitting over Bills affect the balance of power between the executive and legislature?

The Supreme Court’s observation that Governors cannot sit indefinitely on Bills passed by the state legislature is a significant development in India’s federal structure. This clarification addresses concerns about the role of Governors—who represent the executive—vis-à-vis the elected legislative bodies in the states.

• Reinforces Legislative Supremacy: The observation upholds the primacy of the elected legislature in law-making. It ensures that the will of the people, as expressed through their representatives, is not obstructed by executive inaction.
• Checks Executive Discretion: By limiting the Governor’s power to delay Bills, the Court curtails the possibility of the executive (through the Governor) undermining the legislative process for political or other reasons.
• Promotes Accountability: Governors, being appointees of the central government, must now act within a reasonable time frame, making them more accountable in their constitutional role.
• Prevents Legislative Paralysis: The ruling discourages the practice of keeping Bills pending, which can stall governance and delay implementation of important policies and reforms.
• Strengthens Federalism: By emphasizing the Governor’s constitutional duty to act on Bills, the Supreme Court’s stance supports the autonomy of state governments and limits central overreach through the Governor’s office.
• Clarifies Constitutional Roles: The observation helps define the boundaries between the executive and legislature, reducing ambiguity and potential conflict between these branches at the state level.