Why it is in news ?
- Supreme Court delivered its opinion on a Presidential Reference under Article 143, triggered by the April 2025 two-judge Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu.
- The April 2025 judgment had:
- Imposed a three-month timeline for Governors/President to act on Bills.
- Declared decisions on Bills justiciable even before enactment.
- Invoked Article 142 to grant deemed assent to certain Tamil Nadu Bills.
- The Union government sought clarity on 14 issues, particularly the scope of Article 200/201, justiciability, and limits of Article 142 powers.
- The Constitution Bench has largely negated the 2025 two-judge ruling.
Relevance
GS2 – Polity / Federalism
- Limits of Governor’s discretion in bill assent.
- Clarification of timelines → smoother State legislative process.
- Strengthening constitutional conventions.
- Judicial review boundaries in pre-enactment stages.
GS2 – Governance
- Reducing executive delays; improving accountability in lawmaking.
Articles 200 and 201
Article 200 – Governor’s options on State Bills:
- Assent
- Withhold assent
- Return Bill (except Money Bills)
- Reserve for President
Article 201 – President’s options on reserved Bills:
- Assent
- Withhold assent
- Return (except Money Bills)
Neither Article prescribes time limits.
What was the Presidential reference? (14 questions)
- Can courts create time limits when Constitution is silent?
- Are Governor’s/President’s actions on pending Bills justiciable?
- Does Governor act with discretion or on aid and advice in Article 200 matters?
- Can Supreme Court under Article 142 grant deemed assent?
- Can courts review actions before a Bill becomes law?
- Do delays amount to constitutional impropriety reviewable by courts?
Supreme Court’s current opinion (Constitution Bench)
a) Governor’s options and discretion
- Governor has three constitutional options under Article 200.
- Governor enjoys discretion in exercising these options.
- This discretion is not bound by the Council of Ministers’ aid and advice.
- Court interprets Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016) narrowly: Article 200 is a discretionary field.
b) Justiciability
- Actions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable before enactment.
- Courts cannot question the content or choice of assent/withholding.
c) Limited judicial intervention
- Courts may only issue a limited mandamus asking the Governor to “decide”, in rare cases of prolonged, unexplained inaction.
- Courts cannot direct the outcome.
d) Timelines
- Courts cannot prescribe timelines where Constitution prescribes none.
- Punchhi Commission’s six-month suggestion is non-binding.
- April 2025 ruling granting three-month limit is overruled.
e) Article 142
- Article 142 cannot substitute constitutional powers of Governor/President.
- Deemed assent is unconstitutional.
f) Reservation of Bills
- Reservation to President is a discretionary power, consistent with Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission principles.
What issues arise from the opinion?
a) Potential derailment of State legislative intent
- Treating Article 200 decisions as discretionary allows Governors to delay/withhold assent.
- Weakens the parliamentary executive model in States.
b) Weakens judicial oversight
- Earlier State of Tamil Nadu (2025) ruling enabled accountability; current ruling reduces review space.
- Before-enactment stages become largely immune from judicial scrutiny.
c) Federalism concerns
- Empowers an unelected Governor (appointed by Centre) vis-à-vis elected State governments.
- Increases possibility of politicised obstruction of State policies.
d) Inconsistency with purposive interpretation tradition
- Court itself created time limits (e.g., K.M. Singh, 2020 — 3 months for Speakers).
- Refusal here marks a shift away from purposive constitutionalism.
e) Sidestepping Commission recommendations
- Sarkaria: Reservation for President should be rare, not routine.
- Punchhi: Decision on Bills ideally within six months.
- Current opinion chooses restraint, not reform.
Broader constitutional implications
- Reasserts textual fidelity over purposive interpretation.
- Alters balance between:
- State legislature (majoritarian mandate)
- Governor (constitutional head)
- President (central executive)
- Signals a conservative approach to judicial intervention in federal disputes.
Way forward
- Need for statutory or constitutional clarification on time limits.
- Governors must follow constitutional morality, not political expediency.
- Inter-governmental forums (e.g., Inter-State Council) should evolve operational protocols.
- Strengthen conventions:
- Timely assent
- Minimal reservation of Bills
- Transparent communication between Raj Bhavan and State governments
- Preserve balance between executive stability and federal autonomy.
