Content
- Governor’s Discretion on Bills (Article 200)
- Polarisation, Neutrality & Civil Discourse
Governor’s Discretion on Bills (Article 200)
Why is it in News?
- President sought SC’s advice under Article 143 on 14 questions regarding the powers of Governors over Bills passed by State legislatures.
- Trigger: Conflict in Tamil Nadu—Governor delaying/withholding assent, prompting judicial intervention.
- SC has now answered 11 of 14 questions, reshaping the understanding of gubernatorial discretion & timelines under Article 200.
Relevance
GS-II: Polity & Governance
- Centre–State relations
- Federalism and constitutional friction
- Role, powers, limitations of Governor
- Article 200, 201, 163, 143
- Judicial review of constitutional authorities
- Anti-defection, legislative process
- Sarkaria, Punchhi Commissions on Governors
- Issues in Union–State trust deficit
- Constitutional morality & democratic mandate
GS-II: Separation of Powers
- Unelected head (Governor) vs elected Assembly
- Delays in assent → legislative paralysis
- Judicial intervention vs constitutional autonomy
GS-II: Indian Constitution—Historical Evolution
- Departure from 1935 Act
- Constituent Assembly’s intent to avoid discretionary veto
- Post-1985 changes in political discipline
Practice Questions
- “The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on Article 200 expands gubernatorial discretion contrary to constitutional intent.” Discuss.(250 Words)
Constitutional Scheme
Governor’s Role in State Legislation
- Under Article 200, when a Bill is presented, Governor can:
- Assent.
- Withhold assent.
- Return Bill (except Money Bills).
- Reserve for President.
Foundational Principles
- Governor acts on aid & advice of Council of Ministers (Article 163).
- Discretion is exceptional, not the rule.
- Not an “employee” of Union (Hargovind Pant case).
Constituent Assembly Intent
- Draft Article 175 originally gave explicit discretion → deleted.
- B.N. Rau’s constitutional note: Governor not meant to be an alternative power center.
Evolution: Historical Background
Government of India Act, 1935
- Explicit discretionary power with Governor-General/Governor.
- Constitution deliberately moved away from this colonial design.
Pre-1985 Reality
- Before Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule):
- Parties could split.
- Government’s “majority” could fluctuate.
- Returning Bills had a real legislative effect.
- Post-1985: Party whip discipline → SC implies this limits need for discretion.
Contemporary Conflict: Why Governors Became Controversial
Recurring Issues
- Delays in giving assent.
- Returning Bills after long gaps.
- Reserving Bills for President without justification.
- Alleged political misuse when Union–State relations are adversarial.
Empirical Evidence
- Ramakrishna Hegde’s data (1991):
- 74 Bills pending with President.
- Some pending 6–7 years.
- Indicates systemic delay, not isolated incidents.
Supreme Court Opinion (2024–25): Core Findings
A. SC on Discretion
- Governor does have discretion in:
- Assenting.
- Withholding.
- Reserving for President.
- BUT this discretion is:
- Not unlimited.
- Subject to limited judicial review when delays are “prolonged, unexplained, indefinite”.
B. No Strict Time Limit
- SC refuses to prescribe a fixed timeline.
- But emphasises:
- “As soon as possible” must have practical meaning.
- Court can intervene in egregious cases.
C. Resubmitted Bills
- Once Assembly re-passes the Bill:
- Governor must give assent “as soon as possible”.
- Cannot withhold again.
D. Withholding Assent
- SC clarifies:
- Withholding cannot be simpliciter.
- Must be accompanied with message (reasons).
The Flaws/Concerns in SC’s Logic – Expert Critiques
Coalition Scenario Overlooked
- SC assumes Council always backs its own Bill.
- Real-world contradiction:
- Coalition government changes.
- New government may not support old Bill.
- Returning the Bill may reflect genuine political change, not misuse.
Aid and Advice Issues
SC assumption:
- Ministers may give unconstitutional advice → Governor needs discretion.
Critiques:
- Ministers take oath to uphold Constitution.
- For unconstitutional advice:
- Governor can report under Article 356 without their advice.
- President also does not have absolute discretion; bound by Cabinet.
Broadening Discretion is Dangerous
- Sarkaria/Venkatachaliah/Punchhi Commissions:
- Discretion should be narrow, only in 2nd proviso of Article 200.
- SC now widens it and makes it non-justiciable.
- Risks:
- Parallel veto authority.
- Legislative paralysis.
Structural Problem: Appointment System
Soli Sorabjee (1985)
- Governor posts used as:
- “Consolation prizes”.
- “Parking spaces” for political aspirants.
Commission Recommendations Ignored
- Sarkaria (1988)
- Venkatachaliah (2002)
- Punchhi (2010)
Recommendations:
- Fixed criteria for appointment.
- Consultation with Chief Minister.
- Non-political backgrounds.
None implemented → institutional conflict remains baked in.
Key Constitutional Concerns
A. Federalism
- Excessive discretion → weakens State autonomy.
- Creates vertical political leverage for Union.
B. Separation of Powers
- Governor becomes a de facto legislative check without electoral accountability.
C. Democratic Mandate
- People elect Assembly → Governor (appointed) stalls its will.
Reform Pathways
A. Constitutional Amendment (Article 200)
- Introduce:
- Clear timelines (e.g., 3 months).
- Procedure for assent, withholding, reservation.
B. Reform Governor Appointments
- Merit-based criteria.
- Mandatory consultation with State.
- Fixed tenure protection.
C. Make Discretion Justiciable
- Courts should be able to review:
- Reasons for withholding.
- Unreasonable reservation.
- Delays beyond prescribed limits.
Conclusion
- SC’s advisory opinion broadens gubernatorial discretion and removes enforceable timelines, reversing the reform-oriented Tamil Nadu judgment.
- This risks reviving a quasi-colonial veto model, contrary to constitutional intent.
- Without timelines and accountability, federal friction will intensify.
- Structural reforms in Article 200 and the appointment process of Governors are necessary for stable Union–State relations.
Polarisation, Neutrality & Civil Discourse
Why is it in News?
- Justice N. Anand Venkatesh (Madras High Court) highlights the erosion of neutrality, collapse of civil dialogue, and rise of polarisation in public discourse.
- Warns that democracy, governance, and societal cohesion face existential risk if neutrality continues to be mocked and polarisation normalised.
Relevance
GS-II: Polity & Governance
- Democratic culture, quality of public discourse
- Institutional credibility: legislature, judiciary, executive
- Civil society and media behaviour
- Impact of polarisation on policy-making
- Threats to deliberative democracy (Habermas)
GS-I: Society
- Social fragmentation
- Erosion of trust, rise of tribalism
- Mental health and community cohesion challenges
- Hate crimes and political violence
GS-III: Internal Security
- Digital manipulation, misinformation
- Algorithmic polarisation and radicalisation
- Weakening of social resilience
Practice Questions
- Discuss how polarisation undermines the functioning of democratic institutions in India. (250 Words )
What is Neutrality & Civil Discourse?
- Neutrality = impartial judgment, evaluating facts without partisan bias.
- Civil discourse = reasoned, respectful debate essential for democracy.
- In classical democratic theory (Habermas), open dialogue allows deliberation, problem-solving, and legitimacy of institutions.
Contemporary Crisis: What Has Gone Wrong?
A. Structural Shifts
- Public forums (TV, social media, political rallies) now prioritise conflict over content.
- Digital platforms monetise emotional outrage.
- Discussion becomes spectacle, not reasoning.
B. Binary Thinking
- Left vs Right, nationalist vs liberal: no middle ground.
- Moderation viewed as weakness; neutrality attacked as betrayal.
C. Tribes Over Truth
- Group loyalty replaces fact-based thinking.
- Confirmation bias and motivated reasoning dominate.
- Opponents treated as enemies, not citizens.
Impact on Democratic Institutions
A. Legislature
- Polarisation → deadlock, abrupt boycotts, rubber-stamp laws.
- Complex policy issues reduced to ideological binaries.
B. Judiciary
- Courts accused of partisanship → weakened legitimacy.
- Judgments viewed through political lens, not legal reasoning.
C. Executive Leadership
- Leaders become faction heads, not representatives of the entire polity.
- Compromise equated with weakness; negotiation space collapses.
D. Public Sphere
- Debate replaced by hostile rhetoric, memes, and dog whistles.
- Civic trust steadily erodes.
Societal and Individual Consequences
A. Mental Health
- Rising stress, anxiety, and anger fatigue from political hostility.
- Decision-makers face emotional burnout.
B. Social Integration
- Social networks shrink; people cluster with ideological mirrors.
- Cross-cutting ties weaken → communal cohesion suffers.
C. Workplace Dynamics
- Ideological divisions influence hiring, collaboration, interpersonal conflict.
D. Extremism & Violence
- Polarisation linked to:
- Rise in hate crimes.
- Political violence.
- Targeting of minority groups.
- Erosion of public safety norms.
The Digital Dimension
A. Algorithmic Manipulation
- Platforms amplify outrage; sensational posts get disproportionate reach.
- Echo chambers reinforce group identity.
B. Homophily Effect (Evidence-Based Insight)
- Increased connectivity → people cluster with similar views.
- This widens opinion gaps, as per multiple social network studies.
C. Misinformation
- Disinformation ecosystems exploit grievance, identity, fear.
- Creates alternate realities and deepens distrust.
Misuse of Neutrality
A. Selective Neutrality
- Condemn others’ faults; ignore own side’s misconduct.
- Neutrality becomes performative rather than principled.
B. Hypocrisy and Erosion of Trust
- Public loses faith in fairness when neutrality is inconsistently applied.
The Middle Path – Why It Matters Now
A. Philosophical Foundations
- As taught by Buddhist ethics and political theorists:
- Middle path = balance, humility, openness.
- Rejects absolutism.
B. Jay Garfield’s Warning
- Polarisation destroys civil discourse → democracy collapses.
- Urges dialogue with:
- Openness.
- Humility.
- Recognition of opponents’ humanity.
- Acceptance of uncertainty in one’s own beliefs.
C. Why Middle Path Is Essential
- Encourages problem-solving, trust-building, and shared citizenship.
- Protects institutions from ideological capture.
Rebuilding Dialogue: What Must Be Done
A. Defend Neutrality
- Treat impartiality as a moral imperative, not passive stance.
- Institutional training for civil servants, judiciary, and media.
B. Strengthen Civic Spaces
- Encourage fact-based discussions.
- Promote citizen forums, deliberative assemblies, and community dialogue.
C. Digital Reforms
- Transparency in algorithms.
- Stronger misinformation checks.
- Civic literacy on online manipulation.
D. Political Leadership
- Leaders must normalise compromise.
- Promote language of unity instead of mobilisation through fear.
E. Societal Responsibility
- View opponents as citizens, not adversaries.
- Accept ambiguity in complex issues.
- Encourage pluralism and empathy.
Conclusion
- The collapse of neutrality is not merely political but existential.
- Without respectful engagement, democratic institutions lose legitimacy, society becomes segregated, and public trust evaporates.
- Reclaiming neutrality, balance, and genuine dialogue is essential to defend governance, peace, and social cohesion.
- Middle path is not idealism—it’s the only sustainable model for modern democracies facing deep polarization.
