Why in the News?
- The Supreme Court is currently hearing a Presidential reference made in May 2025 regarding timelines and powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
- This follows the April 2025 Supreme Court judgment (State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr), which prescribed timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
- The issue involves federalism, democratic mandate, and constitutional discretion, with debates between the Centre and opposition-ruled States on the proper limits of gubernatorial powers.
| Gubernatorial powers
1. The term “gubernatorial powers” refers to the constitutional, administrative, and discretionary authorities and functions exercised by a Governor in a State. 2. These powers include the Governor’s role as the head of the State executive, their ability to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and their special discretionary powers in exceptional situations like hung assemblies or constitutional crises. 3. In simple terms, it encompasses all the responsibilities, rights, and functions assigned to a Governor under the Constitution to ensure the smooth functioning of the State government. |
Key Highlights
- Constitutional Provisions
- Article 200: When a Bill is presented to a Governor, they have four options:
- Give assent to the Bill.
- Withhold assent (reject the Bill).
- Article 200: When a Bill is presented to a Governor, they have four options:
- Return the Bill for reconsideration by the State Legislature.
- Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
- Article 201: Deals with the President’s assent for Bills reserved by Governors.
- The Constitution does not prescribe any timeline for these actions.
- Article 163: Requires the Governor to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in cases where discretion is explicitly allowed.
- Supreme Court April 2025 Judgment
- Prescribed a three-month timeline for Governors to:
- Withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration.
- Act when returning a Bill for reconsideration.
- Similarly, a three-month timeline was set for the President to decide on Bills reserved for his consideration.
- Decisions beyond these timelines are subject to judicial review.
- The judgment relied on Article 200 wording “shall”, past cases (Nabam Rebia 2006), recommendations of Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, and Ministry of Home Affairs guidance.
- Prescribed a three-month timeline for Governors to:
- Commissions’ Recommendations
- Sarkaria Commission (1987):
- Only reservation of Bills for the President under rare cases of unconstitutionality is a discretionary power of the Governor.
- The President should dispose of reserved Bills within six months.
- Punchhi Commission (2010):
- Recommended the Governor take a decision within six months.
- Emphasized acting on the advice of Ministers for normal Bills.
- Centre’s Arguments
- The Governor has discretionary powers under Article 163 in exceptional cases.
- Courts cannot prescribe timelines where the Constitution does not.
- Political and constitutional disputes between States, Governors, and the President should be resolved politically, not judicially.
- Objected to the three-month timeframe for the President.
- Opposition-ruled States’ Arguments
- Governors in opposition-ruled States have deliberately delayed assent or reserved Bills against ministerial advice.
- Such delays violate the popular mandate and are not true discretion.
- They advocate for fixed timelines to prevent arbitrary use of gubernatorial powers.
- Federalism Concerns
- The core issue is politicisation of the gubernatorial post.
- Governors are meant to be nominal heads like the President at the Union level.
- Delays or discretionary overreach undermine the powers of elected State governments.
- Court’s Approach and Way Forward
- Courts generally exercise restraint where no constitutional timelines exist.
- In past cases, like M. Singh (2020), courts have imposed timelines for Speakers to act on disqualifications under the Tenth Schedule.
- The Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment interpreted “shall” in Article 200 to limit discretion.
- Centre and Governors are expected to follow the three-month timeline, supporting democratic and federal principles.
- Sarkaria Commission (1987):
| Sarkaria Commission Recommendations on Governors
1. Consultation with State Governments a. The Central Government should consult the State Chief Minister before appointing a Governor. b. This ensures that the Governor’s appointment respects the federal spirit and maintains cooperative relations between Centre and State. 2. Qualifications of the Appointee a. The Governor should be eminent in some walk of life, with a reputation for integrity and competence. b. Preferably, the Governor should be from outside the State to maintain impartiality. c. The Governor should remain detached from local politics, avoiding recent or active involvement in political activities. 3. Political Neutrality a. A politician from the ruling party at the Centre should not be appointed as Governor in a State governed by a different party or coalition. b. This prevents potential conflicts and ensures that the Governor acts as a neutral constitutional head. 4. Tenure a. The normal tenure of a Governor should be five years, which can only be disturbed in exceptional circumstances. Punchhi Commission Recommendations on Governors 1. Appointment Guidelines a. Governors should be distinguished individuals with a record of integrity and competence. b. Preferably, Governors should be from outside the state they are appointed to, to maintain neutrality. c. They should maintain political detachment, avoiding recent involvement in active politics. 2. Fixed Tenure and Independent Removal a. Governors should have a fixed tenure of five years. b. Removal should follow an impartial process, not based solely on the discretion of the Central Government. 3. Impeachment a. The procedure for impeachment of the President, with necessary modifications, could also be applied to Governors. b. This ensures accountability and protects the Governor’s office from arbitrary removal. 4. Limitations on Discretionary Powers a. Article 163 does not give broad discretionary powers to Governors. b. Any discretionary action must be: i. Limited in scope ii. Reasoned and exercised in good faith iii. Approached with caution 5. Timely Decision on State Bills a. Governors should decide within six months whether to approve or reserve state legislative bills for Presidential consideration. b. This prevents undue delays in the legislative process and respects the popular mandate of the State government. 6. Restriction of Non-Constitutional Roles a. Governors should not hold positions such as Chancellors of Universities or other statutory roles. b. Their responsibilities should be strictly confined to constitutional duties to avoid conflicts of interest and politicization. |
Discretionary Powers of the Governor
- Constitutional Discretion
- Assent to Bills: The Governor can give or withhold assent, return a Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration (Articles 200 & 201).
- President’s Rule: Under Article 356, the Governor can advise the President if the State machinery fails and recommend imposition of President’s Rule.
- Union Territories Administration: If the Governor is also the Administrator of a Union Territory (Article 239(2)), they can act independently of his Cabinet.
- Seeking Information: Under Article 167, the Governor can request the Chief Minister for information on administrative and legislative matters.
- Situational Discretion
- Appointing Chief Minister: In a hung assembly, the Governor can choose a leader who seems most likely to form a stable government.
- Dissolution of Assembly: The Governor can dissolve the Assembly on advice of a Chief Minister who has lost majority support.
- Dismissal of Ministry: If a Ministry refuses to resign after losing majority or a non-confidence motion, the Governor can dismiss the Ministry.
Implications
- Strengthening Federalism
- Imposing timelines ensures Governors cannot undermine State legislatures.
- Respects the popular mandate of elected governments.
- Judicial Oversight
- Acts as a check on arbitrary delays by Governors and the President.
- Promotes accountability while preserving exceptional discretion in rare unconstitutional cases.
- Political Neutrality
- Timelines reduce scope for politicisation of the Governor’s office.
- Ensures neutral functioning of constitutional heads.
- Administrative Efficiency
- Reduces bottlenecks in law-making processes at State level.
- Guarantees timely assent, reconsideration, or reservation of Bills.
- Democratic Principles
- Upholds representative democracy by aligning Governor actions with the Council of Ministers’ advice.
- Limits arbitrary delays that could stifle legislative intent.
Challenges and Way Forward
| Challenges | Way Forward |
| Politicisation of Governor’s post leading to selective delays | Strict adherence to timelines; ensure Governors act on ministerial advice |
| Ambiguity in Constitution regarding discretionary powers | Judicial interpretation and purposive reading of “shall” in Article 200 |
| Centre vs State disputes on Bills | Encourage political resolution with constitutional guidance |
| Rare cases of Bills potentially unconstitutional | Retain Governor’s discretion only in such exceptional cases |
| Courts’ interference vs executive independence | Judicial review limited to unreasonable delays; retain restraint |
Conclusion
The timelines for Governors’ and President’s assent to Bills are crucial to ensure that federalism and democratic principles are upheld. While the Constitution provides discretionary powers in exceptional cases, arbitrary delays undermine the elected government’s mandate. Judicially prescribed timelines, like in the April 2025 judgment, strike a balance between discretion, accountability, and efficiency, strengthening the constitutional framework.
| Ensure IAS Mains Question
Q. Critically examine the role of Governors in the legislative process in India. Should timelines be fixed for their assent to Bills? Illustrate with recent Supreme Court judgments and commission recommendations. (250 words) |
| Ensure IAS Prelims Question
Q. Consider the following statements about the Governor’s role: 1. The Governor must act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers except in rare circumstances. 2. The Constitution does not prescribe any timeline for the Governor to act on a Bill. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? a) 1 only b) 2 only c) Both 1 and 2 d) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: c) Both 1 and 2 Explanation: Statement 1 is correct: Article 163 and Article 200 require the Governor to act as per the Council of Ministers’ advice except in exceptional cases. Statement 2 is correct: The Constitution does not specify any time limit for the Governor to give assent, return, withhold, or reserve a Bill. |
|
Also Read |
|
| UPSC Foundation Course | UPSC Daily Current Affairs |
| UPSC Monthly Magazine | CSAT Foundation Course |
| Free MCQs for UPSC Prelims | UPSC Test Series |
| ENSURE IAS NOTES | Our Booklist |
