PYQ Relevance:UPSC 2022: Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. Linkage: The recent Supreme Court directive fixing a timeline for Governors under Article 200 directly relates to the constitutional limits on gubernatorial powers discussed in the 2022 question. Both highlight that the Governor, as a constitutional head, must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not misuse discretion to stall legislation. Just as re-promulgation of ordinances undermines legislative supremacy, withholding assent indefinitely violates constitutional morality and federal balance. |
Mentorâs Comment:
The recent Supreme Court intervention fixing a time limit for Governors and the President to act on Bills marks a constitutional milestone. This decision is not merely about timelines but about strengthening federalism, ensuring legislative efficacy, and curbing misuse of gubernatorial discretion. For UPSC aspirants, it becomes a vital case study in Centre-State relations, separation of powers, and the evolving role of the judiciary in sustaining democracy.
Introduction
The Supreme Courtâs decision to prescribe a three-month time limit for Governors and the President to take a final call on Bills under Article 200/201 has reignited debates on federalism, separation of powers, and the scope of judicial activism. For decades, Governors have been accused of sitting indefinitely on Bills, creating a legislative deadlock and undermining the democratic will of elected legislatures. This judicial nudge aims to resolve what has become a serious constitutional anomaly, ensuring that governance does not remain hostage to political manoeuvring.
Why is this in the news?
The issue is significant because, for the first time, the Supreme Court has imposed a specific timelineâthree monthsâfor Governors and the President to act on Bills, despite the Constitution prescribing none. This intervention arose after repeated instances where Governors withheld assent or simply delayed action on Bills for years, undermining legislative functioning. The decision is both a remedy for constitutional paralysis and a reinforcement of federal balance, making it a landmark moment in Indiaâs constitutional journey.
Judicial clarity on Article 200:
- Four options under Article 200: Assent to the Bill, withhold assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President.
- No discretion intended: The omission of the words âin his discretionâ (present in Government of India Act, 1935, Section 75) shows the Constituent Assembly wanted Governors to act only on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Judicial commissionsâ stand: Both Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions reiterated that Governors are constitutional heads, not independent power centres.
Has the Governor misused discretionary powers?
- Contradictory judicial stance: While Shamsher Singh (1974) acknowledged discretionary scope, later judgments including Nabam Rebia (2016) and Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) rejected such independence.
- Risk of overreach: Allowing Governors unilateral discretion would convert them into âsuper constitutional authorities,â stalling state governance.
- Expert view: D.D. Basu highlighted that unlike UK sovereigns, Indian Governors have no scope for withholding assent independently.
Why did the Supreme Court fix a timeline?
- Legislative paralysis: Governors had sat on Bills for years without decision, blocking governance.
- Judicial remedy: By fixing three months, the Court ensured smooth functioning of legislatures, akin to how Article 21âs scope was expanded through judicial interpretation in Maneka Gandhi.
- Federal protection: Recent rulings in State of Punjab v. Governor (2023) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025) strengthened statesâ autonomy, preventing misuse of gubernatorial office.
Could the Union have intervened earlier?
- Role under Article 355: The Union is duty-bound to ensure constitutional governance in states. A Governor blocking Bills indefinitely amounts to violation of constitutional provisions.
- Non-intervention so far: Successive Union governments avoided directing Governors, leading to judicial stepping in.
- Judicial nudge as necessity: The Courtâs ruling acts as a constitutional guardrail in absence of executive remedy.
Implications for federalism and democracy
- Strengthening federal balance: Prevents Governors from acting as political agents of the Centre.
- Judicial activism or necessity?: Critics see it as judicial overreach, but history shows courts often expand constitutional meaning to meet new realities (e.g., Article 21 due process).
- Legislative efficiency: Restores faith in elected assembliesâ authority, ensuring peopleâs mandate is not subverted.
Conclusion
The Supreme Courtâs directive to Governors and the President is a pragmatic response to a constitutional vacuum. It plugs misuse, safeguards federalism, and ensures legislative efficiency. Far from amending the Constitution, it exemplifies how judicial interpretation adapts constitutional principles to emerging challenges. This marks a significant moment where judicial innovation has strengthened democracy by preventing paralysis of governance.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024