UPSC Relevance GS-II (Polity & Constitution): Federalism, Centre–State Relations, Constitutional Authorities, Role of Governors. GS-II (Governance): Legislative–Executive relations, Judicial Review. Essay & Ethics: Constitutional morality, democratic accountability, checks and balances.

Why in News?

The Supreme Court of India recently expressed concern over the inaction of Governors in several states who have withheld, delayed, or failed to act on Bills passed by the State Legislatures. The Court emphasized that such inaction undermines constitutional governance, legislative supremacy at the state level, and the federal balance. This raises important questions about the scope of Article 200 of the Constitution, which empowers Governors to assent, withhold, or reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration.

Background

The issue has gained prominence due to repeated confrontations between State Governments and Governors in states like Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Kerala, and West Bengal.

• State governments allege that Governors are sitting indefinitely on Bills instead of exercising their constitutional options.
• This has triggered debates on the constitutional limits of gubernatorial discretion and whether such delays violate the “constitutional trust” principle.

Example:

• In Punjab (2023), the Governor delayed assent to multiple Bills including a crucial Finance Bill.
• In Tamil Nadu, several Bills related to social justice and university appointments were held back.
• The Supreme Court intervened, stating that the Governor cannot stall legislation by keeping Bills pending endlessly.

Article 200: Governor’s Assent to Bills

When a Bill is passed by a State Legislature, it doesn’t become law immediately. It first goes to the Governor, who has four options:

1. Assent to the Bill

• Governor approves the Bill.
• The Bill becomes law.

Example: Most ordinary Bills get assent without delay.

2. Withhold Assent

• Governor may reject the Bill outright.
• This is rarely used, since it can be seen as going against democratic norms.

Example: Few Governors have done this, as it often creates Centre–State tensions.

3. Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill)

• If the Governor disagrees, he may return the Bill for reconsideration.
• Legislature can re-pass the Bill (with or without changes).
• Once re-passed, the Governor is bound to give assent.

Example: This acts as a check and balance but ensures Legislature has the final word.

4. Reserve the Bill for the President

• Governor may send the Bill to the President of India instead of deciding himself.

Usually done if the Bill:

• contradicts the Constitution,
• affects Union Government’s interests,
• or involves matters of judiciary.
• President then decides whether to give assent.

Example: Bills affecting subjects like land acquisition or police powers may be reserved.

Discretionary Power of Governor 👉Some powers, like reserving a Bill for the President, are discretionary. 👉This means the Governor can act without the advice of the State Council of Ministers. 👉However, in practice, Governors are expected to use these powers sparingly to avoid political misuse. 1. Constitutional Discretion These powers are specifically given by the Constitution itself. 👉Governor’s decision is final if a matter falls under discretion. 👉His actions cannot be challenged in court merely on the ground that he should/shouldn’t have used discretion. Examples: 👉Reserving a Bill for President’s consideration (Article 200). 👉Recommending President’s Rule in the State (Article 356). 👉Administrator role → Acting as Administrator of an adjoining Union Territory (if given additional charge). 👉Tribal Councils → Determining royalty payable to Autonomous Tribal District Councils in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram from mineral resources. 👉 Key Point: These are written, explicit provisions in the Constitution. 2. Situational Discretion These are not directly written in the Constitution, but arise due to political or practical situations in States. Examples: Appointment of Chief Minister →When no party has a clear majority (hung assembly).When the CM suddenly dies and no clear successor is visible. Dismissal of Council of Ministers →If the ministry loses the confidence of the Assembly but refuses to resign. Dissolution of State Assembly →If the ministry has lost majority and no alternative stable govt can be formed. 👉 Key Point: These powers are not explicit, but come from conventions and practical necessity.

The Constitutional Debate: Governor’s Role

1. Governor as a Constitutional Head

• Under Article 163, the Governor is expected to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (except in matters where the Constitution gives discretion).
• This makes the Governor similar to the President at the Union level – a ceremonial head, not the real executive authority.

2. Not a Political Agent

• The framers of the Constitution (Constituent Assembly debates) were clear: the Governor should act as a neutral referee, ensuring smooth functioning of the Constitution.
• They explicitly rejected the idea of Governors being political representatives of the Union government in States.
   👉 However, in practice, Governors are often seen as agents of the Centre, especially in opposition-ruled States.

3. Constitutional Morality

• Delays or refusals by Governors in giving assent to Bills passed by elected assemblies raise concerns.
• Such actions undermine the mandate of the people and erode democratic principles.
• Constitutional morality requires the Governor to respect representative democracy and avoid partisan conduct.

The Governor’s role is meant to be constitutional and apolitical, ensuring stability and rule of law. However, frequent misuse of powers—especially under Article 200 (assent to Bills) and Article 356 (President’s Rule)—has made the Governor’s office a point of political controversy.

Judicial Stand on Governors’ Discretion

1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)

• The Supreme Court held that the Governor is a constitutional head.
• Must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in exceptional situations where the Constitution itself provides discretion.
   Key Idea: Governor ≠ independent executive authority.

2. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)

• Concerned the political crisis in Arunachal Pradesh.
• The court ruled that the Governor cannot act independently in routine matters.
• His powers are not unfettered and must align with ministerial advice.
   Key Idea: Reinforced the limited scope of discretion.

3. Recent Supreme Court Observations (2023–24)

• Court criticized Governors for keeping Bills pending indefinitely without action.
• Held that such inaction is unconstitutional and open to judicial review.
  Key Idea: Governor must decide promptly—either assent, return, or reserve the Bill for the President.

Key Term – Judicial Review The power of the judiciary to examine whether actions of the legislature or executive conform to the Constitution.Ensures checks and balances against arbitrary exercise of power by Governors.

Federalism and Political Tensions

This controversy highlights the Union–State tensions in Indian federalism:

• State Governments’ View: Governors are misusing powers to obstruct state policies, acting as agents of the Centre.
• Centre’s Perspective: Governors are ensuring that states don’t pass Bills that may undermine national interest or constitutional values.

Example: Education-related Bills in Tamil Nadu and Kerala were reserved for the President on grounds of conflicting with Union List matters.

Implications for Democracy and Governance

1. Erosion of Federal Balance

• The Constitution envisages a federal structure with a unitary bias.
• Excessive or partisan use of Governor’s discretion disturbs this delicate Centre–State balance.
   Example: Reservation of state Bills for the President on political grounds weakens the autonomy of States.

2. Legislative Paralysis

• When Governors delay or withhold assent to Bills, State legislatures lose their effective law-making authority.
• This creates a situation where the popular mandate of the Assembly is frustrated.
   Example: Recent controversies in Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Kerala, where several Bills remained pending with the Governor.

3. Judicial Overload

• Political disputes between Governors and State governments increasingly reach the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• This diverts judicial time and energy from other crucial issues.
   Example: Nabam Rebia case (2016) and recent SC hearings (2023–24) on pending Bills illustrate judicial intervention in political deadlocks.

4. Democratic Deficit

• Governors are unelected appointees of the Union, yet their discretionary actions can override elected representatives.
• This undermines the principle of representative democracy and weakens people’s trust in institutions.
  Example: When Governors dismiss governments or stall Bills, it appears as though democracy is being controlled from outside the State.

Way Forward

1. Clear Timelines for Assent

• Like the President, Governors should be required to act within a reasonable timeframe on Bills.
• A period of 3–6 months may be prescribed to prevent indefinite delays.

2. Codification of Conventions

• Parliament can enact a law or guidelines clarifying the scope of discretion under Article 200.
• This would reduce ambiguity and bring uniformity across States.

3. Strengthening Cooperative Federalism

• Friction between Centre-appointed Governors and State governments can be reduced through consultation and mutual respect.
• Regular Centre–State dialogues (like Inter-State Council) can help build trust.

4. Judicial Safeguards

• The Supreme Court can lay down binding principles ensuring Governors do not misuse discretion.
• Judicial review of unreasonable delays or arbitrary actions would keep the office accountable.

5. Revisiting the Role of Governors

Recommendations of Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) must be revisited:

• Governor’s office should be apolitical and neutral.
• Tenure security to reduce political pressures.
• Restricting discretionary powers strictly to constitutional necessities.

Conclusion

The ongoing confrontation over Governor’s inaction on Bills is not just a political issue but a constitutional challenge. It strikes at the heart of federalism, separation of powers, and representative democracy. Judicial review of Article 200 discretion is essential to uphold the Constitution’s spirit, ensuring that Governors remain facilitators, not obstacles, in the democratic process.

UPSC PRELIMS PRACTICE QUESTION-

1. Consider the following statements regarding Article 200 of the Indian Constitution:

1. It empowers the Governor to either assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or reserve it for the consideration of the President.
2. The Constitution prescribes a specific time limit within which the Governor must act on a Bill.
3. The Governor may return a Bill (other than a Money Bill) to the State Legislature for reconsideration.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

 A. 1 and 2 only
 B. 2 and 3 only
 C. 1 and 3 only
 D. 1, 2 and 3

ANS-(C)

Mains Practice Questions

Q. The recent Supreme Court intervention on Governors’ inaction under Article 200 has reignited debates on federalism and constitutional morality. Discuss.( 10 MARKS, 150 WORDS)

SOURCE- THE HINDU

Found this helpful?
Bookmark for revision, Practice the mains question, and
Share with fellow aspirants!                                                                 THANK YOU