Context:
The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference under Article 143, seeking clarity on the constitutional powers, discretion, and timelines of Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills. The reference arises amid recurring Centre–State tensions, particularly involving Opposition-ruled States, over prolonged delays in clearing legislation, raising concerns about federalism, constitutional accountability, and separation of powers.
Key Highlights:
Presidential Reference and Core Issues
-
The President sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether courts can:
-
Prescribe timelines for Governors and the President
-
Issue directions regarding assent to State Bills
-
-
The central question concerns the time limit for assent, withholding, or reservation of Bills.
Union Government’s Stand
-
The Union government criticised the judiciary for alleged encroachment into the constitutional domain of:
-
Governors
-
President
-
-
It argued that the April 8 Supreme Court judgment, which imposed a three-month deadline, applies a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
-
The Attorney General contended that:
-
Governors must retain discretion
-
They should assess constitutional validity before assenting or reserving Bills.
-
Supreme Court’s Earlier Position
-
In its April 8 ruling, the Court held that:
-
Constitutional authorities cannot indefinitely delay decisions
-
Courts cannot remain “idle spectators” if constitutional duties are not discharged
-
-
The judgment aimed to curb arbitrary delays and protect democratic mandates of State legislatures.
Federal and Governance Implications
-
The dispute reflects ongoing friction between Governors and State governments, especially in Opposition-ruled States.
-
Delays in assent affect:
-
Policy implementation
-
Legislative intent
-
Cooperative federalism
-
Relevant Prelims Points:
-
Issue: Delay by Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills.
-
Causes:
-
Political differences between Centre and States
-
Ambiguity in constitutional timelines
-
-
Key Constitutional Provisions:
-
Article 200: Governor’s options on State Bills
-
Article 201: Reservation of Bills for President’s consideration
-
Article 143: Presidential Reference
-
-
Judicial Intervention:
-
April 8 judgment prescribing a three-month deadline
-
-
Impact:
-
Raises questions on judicial limits and executive discretion
-
Affects Centre–State relations
-
Relevant Mains Points:
-
Key Concepts Explained:
-
Presidential Reference: Advisory opinion sought by the President from the Supreme Court
-
Governor’s Assent: Mandatory approval for State Bills to become law
-
-
Constitutional Principles Involved:
-
Federalism
-
Separation of Powers
-
Rule of Law
-
-
Governance Concerns:
-
Absence of explicit timelines in the Constitution
-
Risk of political misuse of gubernatorial discretion
-
-
Analytical Perspective:
-
Judicial timelines enhance accountability
-
Excessive judicial control may dilute constitutional autonomy
-
-
Way Forward:
-
Codify reasonable timelines through convention or legislation
-
Strengthen constitutional morality among Governors
-
Encourage dialogue-based resolution between Centre and States
-
Clarify scope of judicial review without undermining executive discretion
-
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
-
GS 2 (Polity): Governor’s powers, Presidential Reference, judicial review
-
GS 2 (Governance): Centre–State relations, constitutional accountability
-
GS 2 (Prelims): Articles 143, 200, 201