On the Presidential Reference to the Top Court

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.

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.