Syllabus: Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
Context
- The Supreme Court answered the 16th Presidential Reference on gubernatorial powers under Articles 200–201.
- It overturned the April 2025 judgment that had imposed a 3-month limit and granted deemed assent to certain Tamil Nadu Bills.
Key Holding
- Judiciary cannot impose a uniform timeline on Governors or the President.
- “Deemed assent” violates separation of powers.
- However, “prolonged and evasive inaction” is impermissible.
Concerns for Federalism
- The ruling gives Governors wide discretion to delay or block State legislation.
- Despite constitutional history, the Court held Governors are not bound by ministerial advice under Article 200.
- Framers had removed “in his discretion” from the Constitution — a fact now diluted.
Practical Implications
- A Governor may withhold assent and return a Bill, but even after repassage, can reserve it for the President.
- This weakens the binding nature of the legislature’s second passage.
- Once sent to the President, Bills may remain pending indefinitely, as no timeline applies.
Judicial Review Limitations
- Court allowed only a “limited mandamus” for extreme delay but gave no definition of a reasonable time.
- Courts cannot review the merits of gubernatorial decisions under Articles 200–201.
- No clarity on when referring a Bill to the President is justified.
Impact on States
- States lose procedural safeguards like timelines and deemed assent.
- No remedy exists when Bills are sent to the President, even on State List subjects.
- Recent disputes in Opposition-ruled States highlight this vulnerability.
Conclusion
- The verdict strengthens executive discretion at the cost of State autonomy.
- By prioritising the “letter” over the “spirit” of the Constitution, the ruling marks a regression for cooperative federalism.
