The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the Governor’s powers under Article 200 of the Constitution. It fixed a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to decide on Bills passed by State legislatures. This move aims to prevent delays in the legislative process. The ruling clarifies the Governor’s role and discretion in granting assent to Bills.
Context and Background
Article 200 outlines four options for a Governor when a Bill is presented – assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve for the President’s consideration. The Constitution does not specify any time limit for these actions. Some Governors have delayed decisions for years, stalling legislation. The Supreme Court intervened to set a three-month deadline to ensure timely governance.
Governor’s Discretion Under Article 200
The Governor’s powers under Article 200 are exercised based on the Council of Ministers’ advice under Article 163. Earlier laws, like the Government of India Act 1935, allowed the Governor discretion. However, the Constitution deliberately removed this discretion. Courts have differed on whether the Governor can act independently. Recent rulings reject the idea of unfettered discretion, emphasising the Governor as a constitutional head, not a super authority.
Judicial Interpretations and Commissions
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016) stated the Governor must act on ministerial advice. The Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions affirmed this principle but allowed rare exceptions in cases of unconstitutional Bills. However, the latest 2025 ruling firmly restricts any discretionary power to withhold assent or reserve Bills.
Time Limit for Decision-Making
No constitutional provision sets a deadline for the Governor’s assent. The Court imposed a three-month limit due to repeated delays. This ensures the legislative process is not obstructed. The Union Government opposed this, arguing no such time frame exists constitutionally. The Court held that prolonged inaction violates the constitutional duty of governance.
Union’s Role and Article 355
Article 355 mandates the Union to ensure State governance aligns with the Constitution. The Court interpreted this to mean the Union can direct the Governor to act on pending Bills. Historically, the Union has not intervened in such delays. The Court’s timeline ruling thus fills a governance gap and strengthens federalism.
Impact on Federalism and Governance
The rulings in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023) and State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor (2025) reinforce the balance between constitutional offices. They prevent Governors from stalling legislation and uphold elected governments’ authority. Judicial interpretation adapts constitutional provisions to contemporary challenges without amending the text.
Significance of Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court’s role includes clarifying ambiguous constitutional provisions. Like the expansion of Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi (1978), these rulings reflect evolving governance needs. The Court’s intervention ensures the Constitution remains effective and responsive to real-world issues.
Questions for UPSC:
- Discuss the role of the Governor in state of Indias and examine the extent of discretion available under Article 200 of the Constitution of India.
- Critically examine the significance of judicial interpretation in upholding constitutional governance with reference to landmark Supreme Court judgments.
- Explain the concept of federalism in India. How does Article 355 empower the Union Government to ensure constitutional governance in States?
- With suitable examples, discuss the balance of power between constitutional heads and elected governments in India and its impact on democratic functioning.
