CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS •

Presidential Reference in respect of the Governor’s powers

18 Sep 2025 GS 2 Polity
Presidential Reference in respect of the Governor’s powers Click to view full image

Context

  • Supreme Court recently heard a Presidential Reference on Governor’s powers under Article 200 (assent to State Bills).

  • Earlier, a 2-judge Bench fixed a 3-month timeline for Governors and the President to decide on Bills submitted for assent.

  • This raised objections from the Union Government and media → argument: “Court cannot impose timelines when Constitution is silent.”

Governor’s options under Article 200

  1. Give assent to the Bill.

  2. Withhold assent.

  3. Return the Bill for reconsideration.

  4. Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.

Discretion of the Governor

  • Article 163: Governor must act on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited areas where discretion is expressly provided.

  • Government of India Act, 1935, Section 75 of this Act is substantially the same as Article 200. Section 75 uses the words “the governor in his discretion” which means that giving assent or withholding it or sending the Bill back to the legislature or reserving it for the consideration of the Governor General is done by the Governor in his discretion.

  • Article 200 deliberately omits “discretion”.

  • This would show that the Constitution-makers wanted the Governor to exercise the power under Article 200 only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Judicial position

  • Shamsher Singh (1974): Court hinted that Governor may use discretion under Article 200.

  • Nabam Rebia (2016): Reinforced limited discretionary role of Governors.

  • State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025): Clear ruling →

    • Governor cannot use discretion to indefinitely withhold assent.

    • If allowed, he would become a “super constitutional figure”, stalling legislature.

  • State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023): Reaffirmed the primacy of elected governments.

Commissions

  • Sarkaria Commission (1988): Governor must normally follow advice; discretion only in rare cases (e.g., patently unconstitutional Bills).

  • Punchhi Commission (2010): Same principle – Governor is a constitutional head, not an independent authority.

Issue of Timelines

  • Constitution (Articles 200 & 201) has no time limit.

  • Governors have, in practice, sat on Bills for years.

  • Court fixed a 3-month limit to prevent legislative paralysis.

Union’s Role

  • Article 355: Union has a duty to ensure that governance in States runs in accordance with the Constitution.

  • If Governor stalls Bills, it violates constitutional governance.

  • Union can, in theory, direct Governor to act — but this has never been done.

Why Judicial Intervention Matters

  • Framers didn’t anticipate Governors misusing powers by inaction.

  • Supreme Court’s timeline is thus a remedy for a constitutional gap.

  • Not “amending” the Constitution, but interpreting it to meet new realities.

    • Example: Article 21 → narrow in A.K. Gopalan (1950), but expanded in Maneka Gandhi (1978) by judicial interpretation.

Significance

  1. Protects federalism and the functioning of elected legislatures.

  2. Prevents Governors from being tools of the Union to stall State laws.

  3. Strengthens constitutional morality – Governor is not a rival centre of power.

  4. Creates a practical rule to prevent legislative deadlock.



← Back to list