The Supreme Court of India recently concluded hearings on constitutional reference made by President Droupadi Murmu. The case concerns the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to Bills passed by state legislatures. This follows a landmark April ruling which declared the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in assenting to ten Bills unconstitutional. The Court invoked its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 and reserved its opinion on whether it could set timelines for assent by Governors and the President.
Context and Background
The President referred questions to the Supreme Court after the April verdict, which used Article 142 to grant assent to pending Bills and directed Governors and the President to act within fixed timelines. The reference challenges whether the Court can impose such timelines. The matter has escalated into a debate on the limits of judicial review over executive functions and federalism, with opposition-ruled states supporting the Court’s intervention and the Centre opposing it.
Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Article 143(1) allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. The Court may decline to give an opinion. The Centre argues that the reference is valid and distinct from a review or appeal. States counter that the reference attempts to relitigate settled issues and subvert legal finality, as Supreme Court rulings are binding and not appealable.
Powers of the Governor
States maintain that Governors must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163, reflecting democratic governance. The Centre argues the Governor’s role is constitutionally distinct and discretionary powers were deliberately retained. The Governor acts as a constitutional check on state legislatures and is not a mere postman. The Centre cited historical examples and data showing limited use of withholding assent powers.
Governor’s Veto and Pocket Veto
The April ruling ruled out a Governor’s indefinite withholding or pocket veto of Bills. The Centre claims withholding a Bill causes it to lapse, citing colonial precedents. States reject colonial comparisons, stressing the Constitution intentionally removed such veto powers to empower elected governments.
Judicial Enforcement of Timelines
The Centre opposes fixed judicial timelines for assent, arguing it alters constitutional functions and should be resolved politically. The Constituent Assembly rejected fixed limits, preferring the phrase as soon as possible. States argue timelines ensure prompt action and judicial review is a check on executive delays, not an automatic assent mechanism.
States’ Rights to Approach the Supreme Court
The April ruling allowed states to file writ petitions under Article 32, traditionally reserved for fundamental rights enforcement. The Centre opposes this, arguing states cannot claim fundamental rights remedies. States and some coalition partners defend their right to approach the Supreme Court to protect their interests and uphold federal balance.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically discuss the role of the Governor in Indian federalism and how it balances state and central powers with suitable examples.
- Examine the scope and limitations of the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Constitution of India with reference to recent judicial practices.
- Analyse the concept of judicial review in India. How does it maintain the balance between the judiciary and the executive? Discuss in the light of recent Supreme Court rulings on executive actions.
- With examples, discuss the challenges of cooperative federalism in India and how constitutional provisions address conflicts between the Centre and states.
