The Supreme Court is presently listening to a Presidential reference made in May 2025 that has sought the opinion of the Court on 14 questions, primarily surrounding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
What is the present reference?
The present reference is a results of a Supreme Court judgment in April 2025 (The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr) that had specified timelines for Governors and the President to behave on Bills handed by State legislatures. It had held that if the Governor was to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, opposite to the recommendation of the State Council of Ministers, he/she ought to accomplish that inside a interval of three months. It additional held that if a Bill for which assent has been withheld is once more handed by the State legislature, the Governor shall assent to such Bill. It had prescribed a timeline of three months for the President to determine on State Bills reserved for his/her consideration. The courtroom had additionally held that selections by Governors and the President on such Bills, together with delays past the prescribed timelines, will probably be topic to judicial evaluate.
The authorities has raised questions concerning the authority of the Court to prescribe timelines when they aren’t specified within the Constitution.
What does the Constitution say?
Article 200 of the Constitution lays down that when a Bill, handed by a State Legislature, is offered to the Governor for his/her assent, he/she has 4 options: (a) could give assent to the Bill (b) could withhold assent to the Bill, that’s, reject the Bill during which case the Bill fails to change into legislation; (c) could return the Bill for reconsideration of the State Legislature; or (d) could reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
As held by the Supreme Court in varied circumstances together with the Shamsher Singh case (1974), the Governor doesn’t train his/her discretionary powers whereas withholding assent for a Bill. He/she is required to behave as per the recommendation of the Council of Ministers. The return of any Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration can also be to be completed based mostly on ministerial recommendation. As defined within the Constituent Assembly by T.T. Krishnamachari, this can be completed if the Government feels that the Bill wants modifications. The Governor shall assent to such a Bill whether it is handed once more by the State Legislature.
As far as reserving any Bill for consideration of the President, the Governor should reserve sure Bills like these which cut back the powers of the High Court. He/she could reserve sure Bills based mostly on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers like people who relate to a topic enumerated within the Concurrent List, to make sure operation of its provisions regardless of repugnancy to a Union Law. It is just underneath uncommon circumstances that the Governor could train his/her discretion and reserve a Bill the place he/she feels that the provisions of the Bill contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution and subsequently, reserve it for the consideration of the President.
The Constitution doesn’t lay down any time restrict inside which the Governor is required to decide with respect to any Bill offered for his/her assent. The foremost a part of Article 200 states that after a Bill is offered to the Governor, he/she ‘shall’ declare that he/she assents to the Bill or withholds assent or reserves the Bill for consideration of the President. The proviso to the article provides that the Governor could ‘as quickly as doable’ return the Bill for reconsideration of the State legislature.
What are the suggestions?
The Sarkaria Commission (1987) had said that solely the reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, that too underneath uncommon circumstances of patent unconstitutionality, could be implied as a discretionary energy of the Governor. Apart from such distinctive circumstances, the Governor should discharge his features underneath Article 200 as per the recommendation of Ministers. It additional advisable that the President (Central Government) ought to get rid of such Bills inside a most interval of six months. The Punchhi Commission (2010) had advisable that the Governor ought to take a call with respect to a Bill offered for his/her assent inside a interval of six months.
What are the arguments?
Article 163(1) of the Constitution requires the Governor to behave as per the recommendation of the Council of Ministers besides in as far as he/she is required by or underneath the Constitution to behave as per his/her discretion. Article 163(2) additional supplies that if any query arises on whether or not the matter is a matter which the Governor is required to behave as per his/her discretion, the choice of the Governor in such circumstances shall be remaining and shall not be known as into query.
The Centre has argued that the Governor enjoys discretion as per the above Article which can’t be inquired into by the courts and consequently no timelines could be fastened. It additionally raised objections to the three-month timeframe that has been stipulated for the President to determine on Bills which have been reserved. Article 201 that offers with this matter doesn’t stipulate any timeline. The Centre has maintained that any points between the elected authorities in a State, the Governor and the President must be resolved politically throughout the framework of the Constitution and that the courts can’t be an adjudicator for each such deadlock.
However, Opposition-ruled States have argued that the Governors in such States have been selectively delaying assent or reserving Bills, in opposition to the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, for the consideration of the President. They have argued that such deliberate delays can’t be termed as discretion and that it disrespects the favored mandate of the folks of the State.
What needs to be the best way ahead?
All the problems said above are within the nature of signs. The underlying illness that has plagued our federal arrange has been the politicisation of the gubernatorial publish. Many political leaders ranging from C.N. Annadurai to Nitish Kumar have known as for the abolition of the Governor’s publish up to now. However, as per our Constitutional scheme, there’s a want for a nominal head of the State govt identical to the President for the Union govt.
Nevertheless, federalism can also be a fundamental characteristic of our Constitution and the Governor’s workplace shouldn’t undermine the powers of popularly elected governments on the States.
The Court often workouts restraint whereas stipulating timelines for motion by constitutional authorities the place none is offered within the Constitution. However, when there are unreasonable delays, the Court has stipulated timelines up to now like in Okay. M. Singh case (2020) the place it laid down a three-month timeframe for Speakers to determine on the Tenth Schedule disqualification.
The Supreme Court has purposively interpreted the phrases in Article 200 in its judgment in April 2025. It has interpreted that the primary a part of Article 200 makes use of the phrases ‘Governor shall’ and therefore it isn’t a discretionary energy. It relied by itself previous judgments together with the Nabam Rebia case (2006), the suggestions of varied commissions in addition to the Office Memorandum of the Home Ministry in 2016 to prescribe the timeline of three months for actions by Governors and the President.
The Centre and the Governors ought to observe the timeline prescribed by the April 2025 judgment to uphold democratic and federal rules. Hopefully, the opinion of the Supreme Court within the Presidential reference would additionally reiterate this place.
Rangarajan. R is a former IAS officer and creator of ‘Courseware on Polity Simplified.’ He presently trains at Officers IAS academy. Views expressed are private.
Leave a Comment