Governor Powers Under Article 200
The Supreme Court of India recently examined the discretionary powers of Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution. This followed concerns about Governors delaying assent to crucial State Bills for years. The Court questioned why judicial review applies to Governors’ reports under Article 356 for President’s Rule but not to their actions under Article 200. This has sparked debate on the balance of powers between the judiciary, Governors, and the Centre.
Governor’s Role Under Article 200
Article 200 empowers Governors to grant or withhold assent to State Bills. They may also reserve Bills for the President’s consideration or return them for reconsideration. The Supreme Court ruled Governors cannot exercise an absolute or pocket veto indefinitely. They must decide as soon as possible and act on the advice of the State’s Council of Ministers, except in rare cases affecting judiciary powers. Delay in assent invites judicial review.
Judicial Review of Governor’s Discretion
While Article 356 decisions triggering President’s Rule are subject to judicial review, the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 was traditionally seen as wider. The Court challenged this, stating if the Governor’s report under Article 356 can be reviewed, so should the delay or withholding of assent under Article 200. This ensures Governors do not stall legislative processes arbitrarily.
President’s Rule Under Article 356
Article 356 allows the President to impose direct Central rule in a State if constitutional machinery fails. This can occur on the Governor’s report or other evidence. The President’s Rule suspends the State government, with administration taken over by the Governor on behalf of the Centre. Parliamentary approval is mandatory within two months and can extend up to three years under strict conditions.
Conditions and Limitations on President’s Rule
The 44th Amendment restricts President’s Rule beyond one year unless a national emergency exists or elections cannot be held. The Supreme Court’s S.R. Bommai judgment laid down guidelines to prevent misuse, including judicial review of the proclamation and limitations on dissolving assemblies without Parliament’s consent. President’s Rule must be an exceptional measure, not a political tool.
Misuse and Safeguards
Historically, Article 356 was misused to dismiss opposition-ruled state governments. The Supreme Court and commissions like Sarkaria and Punchhi have recommended safeguards. These include warnings to States, parliamentary oversight, and exploring localised emergencies instead of full state takeover. The Governor’s role is also kept in check to prevent arbitrariness.
Significance for Indian Federalism
The evolving judicial stance reinforces federal balance by curbing unchecked powers of Governors and the Centre. It protects State legislatures’ autonomy and ensures timely legislative functioning. The debate marks the need for clear constitutional boundaries and respect for democratic processes within States.
| Related | |
|---|---|
