Supreme Court Examines Governor Powers Under Articles 200, 201
The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a Presidential reference made in May 2025. The reference seeks the Court’s opinion on 14 questions regarding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. This follows a landmark April 2025 judgment in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. The judgment prescribed timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. It also allowed judicial review of delays and actions by these constitutional authorities.
Background of the April 2025 Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that Governors must act on Bills within three months. If a Governor withholds assent or reserves a Bill for the President’s consideration, it must be done within this period. If the Bill is re-passed by the State legislature, the Governor is bound to give assent. The President also must decide on reserved Bills within three months. The Court declared that delays or decisions beyond these timelines are open to judicial review. This was challenged by the government, which questioned the Court’s authority to fix timelines absent in the Constitution.
Constitutional Provisions under Articles 200 and 201
Article 200 states that when a Bill is presented to the Governor, they may – give assent, withhold assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. The Governor usually acts on the advice of the State Council of Ministers. Discretionary powers are limited and apply only in rare cases, such as when a Bill may contravene the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify any time limit for the Governor’s decision. Article 201 requires the President to assent or withhold assent to Bills reserved for their consideration but also does not prescribe any deadline.
Recommendations from Constitutional Commissions
The Sarkaria Commission (1987) recommended that the Governor’s discretionary power to reserve Bills should be rare and that the President should dispose of reserved Bills within six months. The Punchhi Commission (2010) suggested the Governor should decide on Bills within six months. These commissions aimed to balance the Governor’s role with respect for the elected State government’s mandate.
Arguments and Controversies
The Centre argues that Article 163(2) grants the Governor discretionary power which cannot be questioned by courts. It opposes timelines for Governors and the President. The government views political issues between State executives, Governors, and the President as matters to be resolved politically, not judicially. Opposition-ruled States contend that Governors delay Bills selectively, undermining democracy. They argue such delays are not genuine discretion but political interference.
Judicial Interpretation and Federalism Concerns
The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “Governor shall” in Article 200 as mandatory, not discretionary. It cited past judgments and commission recommendations to justify the three-month timeline. The Court has previously imposed timelines in constitutional matters to prevent undue delays. The politicisation of the Governor’s post remains a challenge for India’s federal structure. The Governor must act as a nominal head without undermining elected State governments.
Way Forward
The Supreme Court’s opinion in the Presidential reference is awaited to clarify these issues. The April 2025 judgment’s timelines are expected to be upheld to protect democratic principles and federal balance. Political and constitutional clarity is essential to prevent misuse of gubernatorial powers and ensure smooth governance in States.
| Related | |
|---|---|
