Gubernatorial Discretion in State Bills: SC Verdict Analysis

Syllabus: Devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.

Context

• The Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion under Article 143 on questions relating to Governor’s powers under Article 200 and President’s powers under Article 201.
• The reference arose after the April 2025 TN judgment that imposed a three-month timeline for gubernatorial action and introduced the idea of ‘deemed assent’.

Key Constitutional Issues Examined

• Existence and Scope of Gubernatorial Discretion

• • Court held that Governors have limited discretion when a Bill is presented:
    • Grant assent
    • Withhold assent and return with comments
    • Reserve the Bill for the President
  • Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while choosing among these three options.

• Timelines for Action

• • No judicially imposed timeline is permissible as the Constitution does not prescribe one.
  • However, long, unexplained delays allow courts to issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to act.

• After Re-passage of Bill

• • • When the legislature passes a Bill again, the Governor must act “as soon as possible”.

• Pre-Enactment Decisions

• • Actions under Articles 200/201 (before the Bill becomes law) are not justiciable.
  • Judicial review applies only in exceptional cases of prolonged inaction.

• Article 142

• • Article 142 cannot override constitutional design.
  • Hence, “deemed assent” is unconstitutional.

Constituent Assembly Intent & Historical Interpretation

• Government of India Act, 1935 explicitly gave Governors discretion.
  • Draft Constitution also had similar wording, but the Constituent Assembly removed it, signalling intent to limit discretion.
• Court justified discretion citing the Tenth Schedule, arguing Bills cannot pass without ruling party support
  • Critics say this ignores coalition politics where governments may change positions mid-process.
• B.N. Rau earlier cautioned that political realignments could complicate advice, weakening the case for “implied discretion.”

Concerns and Criticisms

• Opinion expands the zone of gubernatorial discretion, raising fears of “gubernatorial governance” in States.
• Non-justiciability of most decisions may undermine federal balance.
• Structural delays already evident: 74 Bills pending with the President for years (example cited by Ramakrishna Hegde).
• SC’s rejection of timelines contradicts:
  • Punchhi Commission recommendation for a 6-month limit.
  • K.M. Singh (2020) judgment imposing time limits on Speakers.
• Risks undermining legislative intent of democratically elected governments.

Way Forward

• Sarkaria, Venkatachaliah & Punchhi Commissions

• • Reform appointment process for Governors.
  • Prescribe clear time limits for Article 200 decisions.
  • Minimise political appointments and strengthen neutrality.
• Reduce politicisation of the Governor’s office; ensure constitutional morality in functioning.
• Insert statutory timelines through a consensus-based constitutional amendment.
• Strengthen Centre–State cooperative federalism and prevent future institutional friction.
• Governors must exercise discretion with responsible urgency, not as a tool of delay or obstruction.