Why in News: The Supreme Court is hearing a Presidential Reference (Art. 143) after its April 8, 2025 judgment, reaffirming that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to State Bills under Articles 200 and 201, a practice seen to paralyse legislatures and disturb the federal balance.
Background
Articles 200 & 201: Provide options for Governors/President to grant, withhold, or reserve assent to State Bills.
Issue: Absence of explicit timelines led to prolonged delays in Opposition-ruled States.
April 2025 SC judgment: Held that indefinite withholding of assent is unconstitutional.
Key Observations from Presidential Reference Hearings
1. Governor’s Role: Cannot “sit over the wisdom of the legislature indefinitely” (Justice Vikram Nath).
2. CJI’s Concern: Governors cannot render “competent State legislatures defunct” through inaction.
3. Constitutional Silence ≠ Unlimited Discretion: Lack of timelines doesn’t imply unchecked powers.
4. Democratic Principles vs Discretion: SG’s claim that Governors check hasty legislation met with judicial caution.
5. Political Selectivity: Prolonged delays seen mostly in Opposition-ruled States, raising misuse concerns.
6. Judicial Review Paradox: Review allowed under Art. 356 (President’s Rule), but resisted for Art. 200 actions—highlighting inconsistency.
Issues & Concerns
- Governors’ Inaction: Paralyzes legislative functioning and erodes federalism.
- Selective Application: Undermines trust between Centre and States.
- Federal Balance: Weakens cooperative federalism; risks central overreach.
- Procedural Route: Presidential Reference unusual; binding review/curative petition mechanisms already exist.
Constitutional & Judicial Position
- April 2025 Judgment (binding under Art. 141) already provided clarity.
- Advisory Opinion under Art. 143 cannot override binding precedents.
- Principle: Constitutional offices must act, not abstain, to uphold democratic governance.
Way Forward
1. Statutory Timelines for assent decisions to prevent indefinite delays.
2. Strengthen Federalism by reaffirming State autonomy within constitutional boundaries.
3. Judicial Oversight: Allow limited judicial review of Governor’s inaction.
4. Political Neutrality: Governors must act beyond partisan considerations.
5. Centre’s Responsibility: Accept SC’s constitutional boundaries; avoid overreach via experimental routes.
UPSC Relevance
GS-II (Polity & Governance): Role of Governor, federal balance, judicial review.
GS-II (Federalism): Cooperative vs confrontational federalism.
Mains Practice Question
Q. Indefinite withholding of assent by Governors undermines both legislative sovereignty and federal balance. Critically examine in light of the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment and subsequent Presidential Reference proceedings.