Blow to States: Supreme Court Ruling Weakens Federal Balance in Governor–State Relations

Context:

• In its response to the 16th Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the scope of powers of Governors and the President concerning State legislation.

• The ruling has sparked serious concerns over erosion of federalism, as it grants Governors wide discretion to delay or block State Bills, with minimal constitutional or judicial checks.

Key Highlights:

Judicial Ruling on State Bills

• The Supreme Court held that courts cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors for granting assent to State Bills.

• Rejected the doctrine of “deemed assent”, even when Governors indefinitely delay decisions.

• Even if a Bill is re-passed by the State Assembly, the Governor can still reserve it for Presidential consideration.

Departure from Earlier Judicial Position

• The ruling contradicts the April 2025 judgment, which had prescribed a three-month timeline for Governors to act on Bills.

• Weakens consistency and predictability in constitutional interpretation.

Expanded Gubernatorial Discretion

• Governors can now stall legislation without explicit accountability.

• No guidance provided on when a Bill should be reserved for the President, enabling prolonged uncertainty.

Relevant Prelims Points:

• Issue: Dilution of States’ legislative authority under the Constitution.

• Key Constitutional Provisions:

  • Article 200: Governor’s assent, withholding, or reservation of State Bills

  • Article 201: President’s consideration of reserved Bills

  • Article 142: Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice

• Key Bodies:

  • Supreme Court of India

  • Governor & President

• Impact:

  • Governors gain disproportionate influence over State legislation

Relevant Mains Points:

Constitutional & Federalism Concerns

• The Court relied on separation of powers, but in effect tilted the balance in favour of Governors, who are Union-appointed authorities.

• Articles 200 and 201 use the phrase “as soon as possible”, implying urgency—yet the Court declined to interpret this as imposing timelines.

• Constitutional framers deliberately removed the phrase “in his discretion” from Articles 200 and 201 to limit arbitrary gubernatorial action.

Commission Recommendations Ignored

• The Sarkaria Commission recommended a six-month outer limit for Governors to act on Bills.

• The judgment does not acknowledge or operationalise this guidance.

Impact on States & Democracy

• Enables indefinite delays, even on subjects exclusively under the State List.

• Leaves States with limited remedies against arbitrary gubernatorial inaction.

• Risks converting Governors into political gatekeepers, undermining democratic mandates of elected State legislatures.

Social Justice & Governance Angle

• Delayed legislation disproportionately affects welfare laws, social justice measures, and rights-based State initiatives.

• Centralisation through Governors weakens cooperative federalism.

Way Forward:

• Constitutional conventions must be codified through legislation or judicial clarification.

• Parliament should consider amending Articles 200 and 201 to introduce reasonable timelines.

• Supreme Court should evolve principles of constitutional morality and federal balance in future cases.

UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):

• GS 2: Polity, Federalism, Governor’s Role, Constitutional Governance

• GS 2: Social Justice, Democratic Accountability

• Prelims: Articles 200, 201, 142, Sarkaria Commission