Context:
The Supreme Court of India, while hearing a Presidential Reference under Article 143, examined whether the judiciary can review prolonged inaction by Governors on State Bills under Article 200, especially amid growing Centre–State tensions. The reference arose from an April 8 judgment concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in granting assent to Bills pending since 2020.
Key Highlights:
Constitutional Issue Involved
- The core question is whether Governor’s inaction on Bills can be subjected to judicial review.
- The Centre and some BJP-ruled States argued that courts cannot impose deadlines on constitutional authorities like the Governor or President.
Judicial Observations
- Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai compared discretionary powers under:
- Article 356 (President’s Rule)
- Article 200 (Assent to State Bills)
- The Court questioned why judicial review is allowed under Article 356 but disputed under Article 200.
Relevant Case Law & Principles
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):
- Established that President’s Rule proclamations are subject to judicial review, especially for mala fide intent.
- The Court is examining whether similar principles apply to Governor’s delays in legislative assent.
Divergent Legal Views
- One view:
- Granting assent is a legislative function, hence outside judicial scrutiny.
- Counter-view:
- Indefinite delay violates constitutional morality, federalism, and democratic governance.
Constitutional Philosophy
- The CJI referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of:
- Clear constitutional boundaries between the Centre and States
- Limited discretionary misuse by constitutional authorities
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Issue: Prolonged inaction by Governors on State Bills.
- Causes:
- Increasing political friction between Centre and Opposition-ruled States
- Ambiguity in Article 200 regarding time limits
- Constitutional Provisions:
- Article 200: Governor may give assent, withhold assent, or reserve Bill for President
- Article 356: President’s Rule based on Governor’s report
- Article 143: Presidential Reference to Supreme Court
- Government Stand: Judiciary should respect separation of powers.
- Impact:
- Legislative paralysis
- Undermining of cooperative federalism
Relevant Mains Points:
- Key Facts & Concepts:
- Judicial Review: Basic structure of the Constitution
- Federalism: Balance between Union and States
- Constitutional Morality: Non-arbitrary exercise of discretion
- Institutions Involved:
- Supreme Court, Governor, President, State Legislature
- Debate:
- Discretion vs Accountability of Governors
- Way Forward:
- Clarification of time limits under Article 200 through constitutional amendment or judicial interpretation
- Codification of conventions for Governor’s role
- Strengthening cooperative federalism and institutional trust
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
GS Paper II: Constitution, Federalism, Judiciary, Centre–State Relations