Archives: News

INTRODUCTION

The advisory opinion of the Supreme Court was sought to address concerns raised by delays in assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies and the earlier judicial attempt to impose fixed timelines on Governors. The reference involved 14 constitutional questions focused on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 and the Court’s jurisdiction to intervene. The new opinion aims to clarify the contours of discretionary powers while protecting legislative authority under the Constitution.

WHY IN THE NEWS

The Supreme Court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on a Presidential reference under Article 143, reversing the April 2025 ruling that introduced the concept of “deemed assent” and mandated a three-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills. The Court has clarified that while Governors ordinarily act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, their powers under Articles 200 and 201 are discretionary, without any judicially enforceable time limits. This ruling has reshaped the dynamics between constitutional heads and elected State governments, impacting legislative functioning and federal balance.

What triggered the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion

1. Presidential reference origin: Resulted from the two-judge bench judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025).

2. Three-month timeline mandate: The earlier ruling specified that Governors and the President must act on Bills within three months.

3. Deemed assent invocation: The bench used Article 142 to grant deemed assent for Tamil Nadu Bills pending with the Governor.

4. Government concern: The Union Government sought clarity on whether Bills become justiciable before enactment and whether courts can prescribe time limits.

5. Magnitude of reference: A total of 14 constitutional questions were raised relating to Articles 200 and 201 and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

What were the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s opinion?

1. Three constitutional choices under Article 200: The Governor may assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration.

2. Discretion of Governor: The Governor exercises discretion in choosing among the three options and is not necessarily bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.

3. Non-justiciability before enactment: Courts cannot compel Governors to act before a Bill becomes law due to absence of constitutionally prescribed timelines.

4. Autonomy of President under Article 201: The President’s powers operate independently and cannot be substituted by judicial directives.

5. Absence of deemed assent: The Constitution does not provide for deemed assent; judicial power under Article 142 cannot be used to invent such a mechanism.

Does this opinion contradict earlier judicial interpretations?

1. Earlier judicial logic: Decisions in Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016) held that Governors act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

2. Present reinterpretation: The Court has held that Article 200 functions fall within discretionary power despite the general rule of acting on ministerial advice.

3. Shift in constitutional balance: The new interpretation expands discretionary authority when dealing with State legislation.

What about time limits for Governors and the President?

1. Punchhi Commission recommendation (2010): Suggested that the Governor should decide on assent within six months.

2. Precedent in K.M. Singh case (2020): The Court had earlier prescribed a three-month limit for the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions; however, no such limit exists for Governors.

3. Current ruling: The Supreme Court held that no enforceable time limit applies because the Constitution does not prescribe one.

4. Implication: The possibility of prolonged delays in assent continues to exist, which may contribute to legislative gridlock.

What concerns emerge from the current interpretation

1. Democratic risk: Legislative functioning may be hindered when Bills remain pending without a time frame for disposal.

2. Centre-State tension: Expanded discretion may tilt the institutional balance toward appointed constitutional heads over elected State governments.

3. Potential politicisation: Use of gubernatorial office could intensify where State and Union Governments are politically opposed.

Way Forward

1. Introduce timelines: Fix a statutory/constitutional time limit for assent to Bills.

2. Record reasons: Make reservation of Bills and delays explainable in writing.

3. Structured coordination: Establish periodic Raj Bhavan-State Government consultation mechanism.

4. Federal ethics: Encourage Governors to follow constitutional neutrality over political alignment.

5. Legislative reporting: Present pendency reports of Bills before the State Legislature annually.

6. Capacity building: Train Raj Bhavan staff on constitutional conventions and cooperative federalism.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion carefully aligns with constitutional text by overturning “deemed assent” and reaffirming discretion under Articles 200 and 201. However, it leaves unresolved the core challenge of prolonged delays in gubernatorial action on Bills passed by elected Assemblies. While the opinion respects constitutional separation of powers and prevents judicial overreach, it simultaneously highlights the need for clearer institutional safeguards to protect democratic accountability and cooperative federalism.

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: This PYQ connects directly to current debates on Governors’ discretionary powers, assent to Bills, and constitutional limits on ordinance-making. It is highly relevant after the Supreme Court’s recent advisory opinion on Articles 200 and 201, which redefines executive-legislature balance and safeguards federalism.