Answer

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s 2025 Presidential Reference hearings exposed tensions between Governors’ discretion and the authority of State legislatures. Indefinite delays in granting assent under Articles 200 and 201 weaken democratic governance and disrupt federal harmony. The Court reiterated that constitutional offices must not obstruct legislatures, ensuring respect for timely legislative processes.

Body

Constitutional conflict between the discretionary powers of Governors and mandate of the State legislature

• Indefinite Withholding of Assent: Governors withholding assent to Bills passed by elected legislatures creates a constitutional deadlock.
  Eg: The Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment held that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent under Article 200.
• Discretion vs Democratic Mandate: While Governors exercise discretion as per Articles 200 and 201, it directly clashes with the State legislature’s sovereign law-making powers.
• Judicial Review Paradox: The Court allows review of Governor’s recommendation under Article 356 but not under Article 200, creating inconsistency in accountability.
• Check on Legislation vs Obstruction: The Centre argued Governors act as a check on hasty laws, but this can degenerate into deliberate obstruction.
• Partisan Application: Governors’ delays often occur in Opposition-ruled States, raising questions of political neutrality.
  Eg: Kerala’s counsel highlighted that prolonged assent delays were disproportionately faced by Opposition-governed States.

Positive impact of such conflict on democratic governance

• Judicial Clarification of Powers: Disputes allow the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of Articles 200 and 201, strengthening constitutional jurisprudence.
  Eg: The April 2025 judgment affirmed that Governors must act within reasonable timelines.
• Check on Hasty Legislation: Governors’ discretion can act as a filter against rushed or flawed bills that may harm public interest.
• Reinforcement of Federal Balance: Conflicts provoke debate on Centre–State relations, ensuring neither side undermines the delicate federal structure.
  Eg: The 5-judge Bench highlighted the need to balance federal cooperation with State autonomy.

Negative impact of such conflict on democratic governance

• Paralysis of State Legislatures: Withholding assent indefinitely makes competent legislatures ineffective, stalling governance.
  Eg: CJI Gavai’s observation warned against legislatures being made “defunct” by inaction.
• Selective Application: Prolonged delays mostly affect Opposition States, undermining political neutrality of constitutional offices.
• Erosion of Federal Trust: Misuse of powers fosters mistrust between the Centre and States, weakening cooperative federalism.
  Eg: Scholars noted that such actions disturb the constitutional balance envisioned in the federal scheme.

Measures to prevent misuse of these powers

• Time-Bound Assent: Introduce statutory timelines for Governors to act on Bills, reducing arbitrary delays.
  Eg: The April 2025 SC ruling implied that absence of timelines does not justify indefinite discretion.
• Judicial Review Expansion: Extend judicial review to Governors’ actions under Article 200, ensuring accountability like in Article 356 cases.
• Strengthening Federal Conventions: Reinforce the principle that Governors must act as constitutional heads, not political actors.
  Eg: Justice Vikram Nath’s remark stressed Governors cannot “sit over the legislature’s wisdom.”
• Legislative Clarification: Parliament may specify limits to Governor’s powers under Articles 200 and 201, ensuring clarity in federal law-making.
• Promoting Neutral Appointments: Ensure Governors are appointed on the basis of constitutional merit rather than political loyalty to strengthen impartiality.

Conclusion

The 2025 Presidential Reference confirmed that Governors, as constitutional heads, cannot obstruct legislatures through indefinite assent delays. Such actions erode democracy and federal trust. Ensuring time-bound decisions, judicial accountability, legislative clarity, and impartial appointments is vital to safeguard State autonomy, uphold constitutional harmony, and strengthen cooperative federalism.

DOWNLOAD PDF