This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.Recent observation of the Supreme Court on the increasing tendency of some governors to hold indefinitely the Bills passed by state Assemblies has far-reaching consequences in strengthening the federal polity of India. If this had happened in one state, it could be read as the eccentricity of a particular individual in a position of authority. When a similar lack of probity is seen amongst the constitutional heads of many states run by Opposition parties, that indicates design and raises the alarm. The apex court made it clear that the “power to take decisions affecting the governance of the state or the nation is essentially entrusted to the elected arm of the state”. The increasing tendency of governors to act on their own, ignoring the advice of the council of ministers, is like “playing with fire”.The present impasse in many Opposition-run states reminds us of a similar incident at the national level almost four decades ago, when the relationship between prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and president Giani Zail Singh had reached a nadir and that almost created a constitutional deadlock.Article 74(1) of the constitution states that the “council of ministers headed by the prime minister shall aid and advise the president in the exercise of his duties”. Is that advice binding on the president? The 42nd Amendment (1976) of the constitution made the advice binding. However, the 44th Amendment (1978) stated that the president can send the advice back to the council for reconsideration for once. If the council of ministers sends the same advice again to the president, he must accept it. Is there any time limit prescribed in the constitution for the president to accept the advice of the council of ministers? Unfortunately, that is not there.President Giani Zail Singh did not give his assent to the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill (1986) after the Bill was passed in Parliament. He sat on the Bill for the rest of his tenure, which created a kind of constitutional impasse at that time. Was it ethical of the president to veto a Bill passed by Parliament? Such an impasse did not recur, not even when the incumbent presidents were from a political party opposed to the ruling party at the Centre ― K.R. Narayanan during NDA-1 or Pranab Mukherjee during NDA-2 rule. Eventually, the supremacy of parliament in Indian democracy was established.Also read: Governors as Ruling Party’s Storm TroopersThe present trend of a few governors keeping Bills passed by Assemblies pending indefinitely undermines the authority of elected governments. Under Article 201 of the constitution, a Bill can be reserved by the governor for the consideration of the president, if the content of the Bill has national ramifications. The president may give his assent, may withhold or even send back a Bill to the governor, with the direction to return it to the state Assembly for reconsideration. However, if the governor has not reserved the Bill for the consideration of the president, he has to act as per Article 200 of the constitution.Article 200 of the Constitution clearly states that once a Bill is passed in the state Assembly and presented to the governor, he or she must either approve the Bill or return it with a request to the House to “reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof”. According to the apex court, the governor has to do so “as soon as possible”. If the House passes the Bill after reconsideration with or without amendment, and the Bill is presented to the governor for the second time, he shall not withhold assent. Article 200 did not fix any timeline for the governor to decide on the matter. That loophole is being used by Raj Bhavans for deliberate procrastination. The apex court observed that governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely without disclosing reasons for delay. Though the constitution provides complete immunity to governors from court proceedings, they cannot act arbitrarily.The Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983 to examine Centre-state relations, had recommended that “a governor should be eminent in some walks of life and not too intimately connected with local politics of the state, and he should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics, in general, and in the recent past in particular”. Unfortunately, these guidelines were never taken seriously by subsequent Union governments. The Union government will hopefully be more judicious in the future about selecting governors, after what has been said by the Supreme Court. Governors of the states also need to learn from the precedents created by presidents of the republic.Gautam Bhattacharya is a former university teacher and former additional secretary to the Union government.