Introduction

The Supreme Court’s opinion on the President’s 14 queries recalibrates the balance between Raj Bhavan and elected state governments. It ends the uncertainty around “pocket veto”, clarifies that gubernatorial discretion is narrow, and rejects any judicial power to impose timelines on constitutional authorities. The ruling is significant because it formalises procedural discipline without enabling judicial overreach, and reveals continued ambiguity that may trigger future litigation.

Why in the news?

The Supreme Court delivered a rare and highly consequential opinion under Article 143, addressing 14 constitutional doubts raised by the President regarding the Governor’s powers on Bills, aid and advice, delay, and discretion. It is a big development because the Court categorically ruled out the Governor’s “pocket veto”, reaffirmed that discretion is exceptional, not routine, and clarified that the judiciary cannot impose procedural timelines on constitutional posts. This marks a striking departure from previous ambiguities in Centre-State relations and reopens debate on federal accountability.

What constitutional options are available to a Governor when a Bill is presented?

1. Four Constitutional Options: Return the Bill, reserve it for the President, assent, or withhold assent; these options arise strictly from Article 200.
2. Bar on Pocket Veto: The ruling prohibits an indefinite delay, emphasising that constitutional silence cannot be exploited to stall legislation.
3. Return of Bill Allowed Only Once: The Governor cannot repeatedly send the same Bill back once the House re-passes it.
4. No Withhold After Re-passage: Once the legislature re-adopts a Bill, the Governor must assent, ensuring legislative primacy.

Is the Governor bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?

1. Binding Advice Rule: Aid and advice are mandatory except in constitutionally specified discretionary functions.
2. No Unfettered Discretion: The Governor’s disagreement with political outcomes does not justify refusing advice.
3. Improper Refusal: The Court held that a Governor cannot withhold assent simply because a new government would not prefer the Bill.

Are the Governor’s discretionary powers unlimited?

1. Narrow Discretion: Discretion is “exceptional”, not a general supervisory authority over the legislature.
2. Subjective Satisfaction Allowed Only for President’s Reservation: Under Article 200, the Governor may reserve a Bill if doubts on constitutionality exist.
3. Judicial Review Retained: Reserving a Bill on irrelevant grounds is open to legal challenge.
4. Discretion Must Meet Constitutional Purpose: Decisions must align with constitutional morality, not political preference.

Can timelines be imposed on Governors or the President?

1. No Judicially Enforceable Deadlines: The Court cannot prescribe rigid timelines because the Constitution does not contain them.
2. Institutional Respect Principle: Judiciary recognises the separation of powers and avoids issuing operational directives to constitutional authorities.
3. Practical Concern Highlighted: While Governors should act “reasonably expeditiously”, this remains non-justiciable.

Are actions under Article 200 justiciable?

1. Yes, on Limited Grounds: Courts may intervene if the Governor acts on irrelevant considerations or violates constitutional limits.
2. Reasonableness Standard Applies: Judicial review ensures the Governor does not misuse constitutional silence to stall governance.
3. Invalid Withholding Possible: A Governor withholding assent after re-passage would be unconstitutional and challengeable.

Can a Governor substitute his decision with the President’s under Article 201?

1. Permissible Only for Constitutionality Doubts: The Governor may reserve Bills only when genuine constitutional issues arise.
2. No Arbitrary Referral: Relying on the President for policy disagreements is unconstitutional.

Can courts adjudicate contents of Bills?

1. Judicial Review Limited: Courts cannot examine legislative content before enactment except for exceptional situations.
2. No Pre-Enactment Censorship: Validity can be tested only after the Bill becomes law.
3. Reiterates Separation of Powers: Judiciary cannot intrude into legislative functioning.

Can the President exercise constitutional powers in place of the Governor under Article 142?

1. Court Rejects the Assumption: No constitutional fiction allows the President to step into the Governor’s role.
2. Limits to Article 142: It cannot rewrite constitutional architecture.

Conclusion

The opinion reaffirms constitutional restraint, narrows gubernatorial discretion, disallows “pocket vetoes”, strengthens legislative sovereignty, and emphasises judicial non-interference in executive timelines. Yet the Court’s hesitation to set procedural limits leaves space for future litigation, signalling continuing tensions in Indian 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 is directly relevant as the latest SC Article 143 opinion clarifies the Governor’s narrow legislative powers and rejects misuse like delay or withholding assent. It links to the issue of constitutional propriety, making re-promulgation without placing ordinances before the legislature clearly unconstitutional.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now