The Supreme Court of India in 2025 reaffirmed the constitutional limits on Governors’ powers in granting assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies. Following the April 8 judgment, the Court addressed a Presidential Reference seeking further clarity. The five-judge Bench confirmed that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills. This ruling strengthens democratic governance and the balance between State autonomy and federal oversight.
Context of the Supreme Court Hearing
The hearings followed a landmark judgment clarifying Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. These Articles govern the Governor’s role in assenting to or withholding assent from State Bills. The Court received 14 questions from the Presidential Reference. The core issue was whether Governors have unlimited discretion or must act within constitutional bounds. The Chief Justice emphasised that Governors should not paralyse State legislatures by inaction.
Constitutional Provisions on Governor’s Assent
Article 200 allows Governors to grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve Bills for the President’s consideration. Article 201 permits the President to return Bills for reconsideration. The Constitution does not specify strict timelines for these actions. However, the Court ruled that this silence does not mean unlimited discretion. Governors must act reasonably and within a framework that respects legislative wisdom.
Democracy Versus Discretion
The Solicitor-General argued Governors serve as a check against hasty legislation. The Court acknowledged this but stressed that this power cannot undermine democratic processes. Justice Vikram Nath stated Governors cannot indefinitely override the legislature’s decisions. The Court noted delays mostly occur in Opposition-ruled States, denoting selective application rather than constitutional ambiguity.
Judicial Review and Federal Balance
The Bench examined why Governors’ actions under Article 356 (President’s Rule) are subject to judicial review but assent delays under Article 200 allegedly are not. It found no constitutional basis for such a distinction. The Court reinforced that judicial oversight is essential to prevent misuse of discretionary powers. This approach preserves the federal balance between Centre and States.
Significance of the Court’s Advisory Role
The Presidential Reference was an unusual step by the Centre to seek clarity post-judgment. The Court noted that advisory opinions under Article 143 do not override binding judgments under Article 141. Established judicial remedies like review or curative petitions were available alternatives. The Court’s reaffirmation signals that constitutional boundaries must be respected to maintain cooperative federalism.
Implications for Governance and Federalism
The ruling curbs Governors’ ability to stall State legislation indefinitely. It emphasises respect for elected legislatures and democratic mandates. The decision strengthens State autonomy while ensuring Governors act as constitutional functionaries rather than political agents. This balance is crucial for India’s federal structure and democratic health.
Questions for UPSC:
- Discuss in the light of Indian federalism the role of Governors in State legislative processes and the constitutional checks on their powers.
- Critically examine the significance of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India in maintaining the balance between State autonomy and Centre’s oversight.
- Explain the concept of judicial review in India. How does it apply to discretionary powers of constitutional functionaries like Governors?
- With suitable examples, discuss the challenges of cooperative federalism in India and the role of the judiciary in resolving Centre-State disputes.
