The Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment on the limited powers of Governors offered much-needed clarity on a contentious issue of federalism, but the Union government’s subsequent actions have cast doubt on its intent to uphold this constitutional balance.
Supreme Court Clarifies Governor’s Powers
- Judicial Verdict: On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that withholding assent to 10 Bills by the Tamil Nadu Governor was “illegal” and “erroneous”.
- Clarifying Constitutional Procedure: The Court outlined constitutional procedures for Governors and the President when State Bills are presented for assent.
- No Indefinite Delays Permissible: Though the Constitution lacks a fixed timeline, the judgment reinforced that indefinite delays are unconstitutional.
Missed Opportunity for Closure
- Missed Opportunity for Federal Clarity: The Court’s judgment could have resolved longstanding tensions between the Centre and States over the arbitrary role of Governors.
- Centre’s Evasive Response: Instead of acting on the ruling, the Centre filed a Presidential Reference under Article 143, reopening already settled issues.
- Centralisation Through Governors: This move is seen as an attempt to retain or expand central control through Governor-appointed positions.
| PWONLYIAS Extra Edge:
Presidential Reference – Article 143
- Presidential Reference Power: President can seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on legal/constitutional matters.
- Types of References: Two types of references: Pre-constitutional and Post-constitutional issues.
- Nature of Supreme Court’s Advice: Supreme Court’s advice is not binding, but holds moral weight.
- India-Specific Power: Unique to India; unlike the US, the Indian President has this power.
- Recent Invocation: Recently invoked regarding the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in giving assent to Bills.
Governor’s Powers under Article 200
- Governor’s Powers: Governor can Assent to Bill, Withhold Assent, Return for Reconsideration.
- Reservation of Bills: Can also reserve Bills for President’s assent under Article 201.
- Pocket Veto: Governor in Tamil Nadu sat on 10 Bills without action—a practice called Pocket Veto (silent delay).
- Constitutional Violation: This delay violates constitutional spirit and undermines legislative supremacy.
Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict
- Imposed Time Limits: SC imposed time limits on Governor’s action despite no constitutional provision.
- 3-Month Deadline: Governor must act (assent/withhold/return) within 3 months.
- 1-Month Assent: Must assent within 1 month if the legislature re-passes the Bill.
- 3-Month Reservation: Has 3 months to reserve the Bill for President under Article 201.
- Use of Article 142: SC used Article 142 to enforce justice — a historic first.
Use of Article 142 – Controversial Move
- Article 142 Power: Article 142 allows the SC to deliver ‘complete justice’.
- Bypassing Governor: SC made Bills enforceable without Governor’s formal assent for the first time in Indian history.
- Criticism: This move bypassed the Governor’s role, drawing criticism as judicial overreach or a ‘nuclear missile’.
- Balance of Power: Raises concerns about the balance of power between the judiciary and executive.
|
Role of Governors in Federalism
- Appointment and Powers of Governors: Governors are appointed by the Centre, but their powers are not absolute.
- Role Within Constitutional Limits: Their role is to act within constitutional limits, not to undermine elected State Assemblies.
- Judicial and Historical Alignment: The Supreme Court’s verdict aligns with past judgments, committee reports, and Constituent Assembly debates, supporting limited and well-defined roles for Governors.
Political and Legal Implications
- Centre’s Use of Presidential Reference: Instead of using the Court’s clear judgment for reform, the Centre’s Presidential Reference may be a political tactic.
- Legal Expert Opinion: Experts note that a Presidential opinion does not override a Court’s judgment.
- Proper Legal Procedure: The appropriate route for clarification would have been a review petition, not a presidential reference.
The Path Ahead
- Acceptance of Supreme Court Framework: The Centre should accept the Supreme Court’s framework and use it to strengthen cooperative federalism.
- Constitutional Amendments: If needed, constitutional amendments could formalize these clarifications.
- Consensus Building: A meeting of Chief Ministers and political leaders may help build consensus on remaining issues related to the Governor’s roles.
Conclusion
Rather than challenging settled principles through a Presidential Reference, the Centre should respect the Court’s judgment, strengthen cooperative federalism, and engage stakeholders to ensure constitutional roles are not subverted by political motives.
To get PDF version, Please click on "Print PDF" button.
PWOnlyIAS
