Syllabus: Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
Context
- In April 2025, Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu curbed indefinite delay by Governors.
- The Court imposed definitive timelines and allowed deemed assent in cases of unexplained inaction.
- This strengthened legislative supremacy and reduced policy paralysis in Opposition-ruled States.
Course Reversal through Presidential Reference
- In Special Reference No. 1 of 2025, the Court diluted earlier constitutional discipline.
- Held that judicially imposed timelines lack explicit constitutional text.
- Rejected deemed assent, calling it alien to constitutional scheme.
- Expanded elastic discretion of Governors and the President regarding assent delays.
- Advisory opinion, though non-binding, carries strong persuasive authority.
Article 200 and Constitutional Dialogue
- Court described Article 200 as enabling a constitutional dialogue among functionaries.
- However, dialogue requires timely and meaningful responses, not prolonged silence.
- Earlier judgment ensured Governors could not weaponise silence to obstruct legislatures.
- The Reference judgment allows motivated inaction, limiting courts to merely directing decisions.
Dilution of Legislative Safeguards
- First proviso to Article 200 allows Governor to return a Bill once for reconsideration.
- Constitutional text implies mandatory assent if Bill is re-passed.
- Reference judgment allows Governors to refer even reconsidered Bills to the President.
- This negates the binding effect of legislative reiteration.
- Creates a constitutional black hole, enabling Bills to be stalled indefinitely.
Federalism and Separation of Powers Concerns
- Judgment undermines federal balance, strengthening Union dominance via Raj Bhavan.
- Assent power, a procedural function, is elevated into a quasi-veto authority.
- Court facilitates indirectly what it condemns directly—legislative frustration.
- Validity of laws can be judicially tested; denial of assent has no effective remedy.
Misplaced ‘Checks and Balances’ Argument
- Court justified expansion using checks and balances doctrine.
- However, unchecked discretion converts ‘check’ into constitutional obstruction.
- Governor’s duty to “protect the Constitution” cannot override democratic law-making.
- Referral to President after reconsideration contradicts constitutional text and intent.
Overall Assessment
- Verdict marks constitutional retrogression, reversing principled restraint on Governors.
- Weakens State legislatures and revives unfettered discretionary power.
- Risks renewed policy paralysis and erosion of cooperative federalism.