State Bills vs Governor

Q1. What is the constitutional position of President and Governor regarding aid and advice?

1. Article 74: At the Union level, the Council of Ministers (headed by PM) gives aid and advice to the President. After the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, this advice is binding (non-discretionary power of the President).
2. Article 163: At the State level, the Council of Ministers (headed by CM) gives aid and advice to the Governor. It is not binding, implying discretionary power of the governor.
3. Judicial clarification: In Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court held that the Governor should normally act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Q2. What options does the Governor have when a State Bill is passed?

1. Under Article 200, when a Bill is passed by the State Legislature, the Governor has 4 options – Give assent, Withhold assent, Return the Bill (except Money Bill) or Reserve the Bill for the President (e.g., if it affects High Court powers).
2. Under Article 201, when the Governor reserves a Bill, the President has 3 options – Give assent, Withhold assent or Return the Bill.

Q3. What is the key issue related to Articles 200 and 201?

1. No time limit is specified for Governor (Art 200) and President (Art 201).
2. This leads to long pendency of Bills and delay in legislative process and governance.
3. Punchhi Commission (2010): Suggested that the Governor should act within 6 months.

Q4. What recent developments have taken place regarding delay in assent?

1. There have been allegations of misuse of Article 200, especially in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
2. Tamil Nadu challenged this issue in the Supreme Court.
3. April 2025: Supreme Court (2-Judge Bench) held that the Governor cannot sit on bills indefinitely. There must be a reasonable time frame, otherwise it is evasive inaction. It suggested time limits for the Governor (1 month / 3 months) and President (3 months).
4. May 2025: The President used Article 143 (Presidential Reference) to seek legal opinion. 14 questions were referred to the Supreme Court (advisory function of SC). Article 143 requires a minimum 5-judge bench.
5. July 2025: Tamil Nadu and Kerala argued that the reference is an “appeal in disguise.”

Q5. What did the Supreme Court (5-Judge Bench) decide in November 2025?

1. The Presidential Reference is a valid functional reference.
2. Judiciary cannot restrain the Governor in one size fits all approach.
3. Separation of powers must be respected. Judiciary cannot usurp executive functions.
4. Article 142 cannot be used to limit the Governor’s powers.
5. Deemed assent is not possible (rejecting April 2025 view).
6. Some legal issues are complex and need time. So, the judiciary cannot dictate a time frame.
7. The Judiciary cannot review legislative Bills.
8. However, in exceptional delays, courts can issue limited mandamus to the Governor or President.

Q6. What is the current issue regarding conflicting judgments?

1. There is a conflict between the April 2025 judgment (2-judge bench) and November 2025 reference (5-judge bench under Presidential Reference).
2. Likely position: November 2025 judgement may prevail because it is by a larger bench (5 judges) and it involves a Presidential Reference under Article 143.