The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a Presidential reference made in May 2025. The reference seeks the Court’s opinion on 14 questions related to the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. This follows a landmark judgment in April 2025 that set timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
Background of the Reference
The April 2025 judgment arose from the case of The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu. The Court ruled that Governors must act on Bills within three months. If a Governor withholds assent or reserves a Bill for the President’s consideration, it must be done within this period. If the Bill is passed again by the legislature, the Governor must give assent. The President must also decide on reserved Bills within three months. The Court made such decisions subject to judicial review. The government challenged the Court’s authority to impose these timelines as the Constitution does not specify any.
Constitutional Provisions on Governor’s Role
Article 200 outlines four options for Governors when a Bill is presented – give assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve for the President. The Governor usually acts on the advice of the State Council of Ministers. Discretionary power to reserve a Bill exists only in rare cases involving constitutional conflict. The Constitution does not specify any time limit for these actions. The term ‘shall’ in Article 200 implies a duty to act but not a fixed deadline. The proviso allows the Governor to return a Bill ‘as soon as possible’ for reconsideration.
Commission Recommendations
The Sarkaria Commission (1987) stated that reserving Bills for the President is a rare discretionary power. Governors should follow ministerial advice otherwise. It recommended the President dispose of reserved Bills within six months. The Punchhi Commission (2010) suggested Governors decide on Bills within six months. These recommendations aim to balance federal and constitutional responsibilities.
Arguments and Controversies
Article 163(1) requires Governors to act on ministerial advice except in matters requiring discretion. Article 163(2) states the Governor’s decision on discretion is final and not subject to judicial review. The Centre argues this discretion cannot be questioned and timelines cannot be fixed. It views political conflicts as matters to be resolved outside courts. Opposition-ruled States claim Governors delay assent or reservation of Bills selectively. They argue such delays undermine the elected government and popular mandate.
Judicial Interpretation and Federalism
The Supreme Court has previously imposed timelines in constitutional matters to prevent unreasonable delays. In the April 2025 ruling, it interpreted ‘Governor shall’ as mandatory action without discretion in routine cases. It relied on past judgments and commission reports to prescribe a three-month timeline. The Court aims to protect democratic principles and federalism by preventing misuse of gubernatorial powers. The Governor’s role as a nominal head must not override elected governments.
Way Forward
The politicisation of the Governor’s post remains a challenge in Indian federalism. Some leaders have called for its abolition, but the position is constitutionally necessary. The Governor must act impartially and within prescribed timelines to maintain balance between the Union and States. The Supreme Court’s final opinion in the Presidential reference is awaited to clarify these issues further.
Questions for UPSC:
- Discuss in the light of Indian federalism the role of the Governor in State governance and the challenges posed by political interference.
- Critically examine the scope and limitations of judicial review over discretionary powers of constitutional authorities in India.
- Explain the significance of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India in the legislative process at the State level and discuss the implications of fixed timelines for Governors and Presidents.
- With suitable examples, discuss the impact of constitutional commissions such as the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions on Centre-State relations and governance reforms in India.
