President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 specific questions related to the Governor’s role. The presidential reference underscores the need for clarity in interpreting Article 200 and its interplay with other constitutional provisions.
Published May 17, 2025 | 5:02 PM ⚊ Updated May 17, 2025 | 5:02 PM
President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 specific questions related to the Governor’s role.
Synopsis: The President’s reference to the Supreme Court is a timely step toward resolving ambiguities in the Governor’s role. By providing clarity, the court can reinforce India’s constitutional framework, ensuring that the delicate balance between state autonomy and central oversight is preserved.
The Governor’s office, a pivotal institution in India’s quasi-federal framework, is entrusted with significant constitutional responsibilities, particularly in granting assent to Bills passed by state legislatures under Article 200 of the Constitution.
However, the absence of a mandated timeframe for Governors to act — whether to grant assent, withhold it, or reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration — has sparked debates about the scope of this discretionary power. This ambiguity has occasionally strained the delicate balance between state autonomy and central oversight, prompting President Droupadi Murmu to invoke Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 specific questions related to the Governor’s role.
This presidential reference underscores the need for clarity in interpreting Article 200 and its interplay with other constitutional provisions, such as Article 201 (Presidential powers over reserved Bills) and Article 142 (Supreme Court’s authority to ensure complete justice).
The questions will likely address critical issues: the extent of a Governor’s obligation to follow the State Council of Ministers’ advice, the justiciability of their actions, the grounds for withholding assent or reserving Bills, and the judiciary’s role in prescribing timelines for constitutional functionaries.
At its core, this reference seeks to reinforce India’s federal structure by ensuring that constitutional authorities operate within defined boundaries while upholding the principle of separation of powers.
The Governor’s discretionary powers under Article 200 are designed to safeguard legislative integrity and federal balance. However, the lack of a prescribed timeline has led to instances of prolonged inaction, as seen in states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where Governors have delayed assent to Bills, sparking allegations of overreach.
Such delays can undermine the legislative will of elected state governments, raising questions about constitutional discipline, the commitment of all functionaries to adhere to the Constitution’s letter and spirit.
The Supreme Court has previously addressed this issue, notably in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2023), where it urged Governors to act “as soon as possible” and provided indicative timelines for decisions on Bills.
The court also invoked Article 142 to deem certain Bills as assented to, aiming to resolve disputes caused by gubernatorial inaction. While this intervention addressed immediate concerns, it raised broader questions about the judiciary’s role in mandating timelines for constitutional authorities when the Constitution itself is silent on the matter.
The principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework, delineates the roles of the Legislature (law-making), Executive (implementation), and Judiciary (interpretation).
Judicial review ensures adherence to constitutional norms, but prescribing specific timelines risks encroaching on the Executive’s domain. As the Supreme Court noted in SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Governor’s actions must align with constitutional principles, but their discretion cannot be wholly curtailed without undermining the federal structure.
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to issue orders necessary for “doing complete justice,” offering flexibility in cases where strict legal provisions may fall short. However, this power is not boundless.
In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the court clarified that Article 142 cannot be used to contravene constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. Declaring Bills as “deemed assented” under Article 142, as seen in the Tamil Nadu case, risks overstepping constitutional limits, particularly if applied broadly without clear guidelines.
For instance, consider a hypothetical scenario where a Bill, deemed assented to, significantly alters the federal balance during a national Emergency under Article 356. Such an action could have far-reaching implications, potentially destabilising governance structures.
While democratic processes, such as elections, provide long-term accountability (E.g., the defeat of governments post-Emergency in 1977), immediate consequences demand caution. The judiciary must balance the need for timely action with respect for the Governor’s constitutional role.
India’s federal structure, often described as “quasi-federal” due to its centralising features, relies on mutual respect among constitutional authorities. The Governor, as a bridge between the Union and the states, must exercise discretion judiciously. Prolonged delays in granting assent can erode public trust and disrupt governance, as evidenced by data from the PRS Legislative Research (2023), which noted that in 2022, over 20% of Bills in certain states awaited gubernatorial assent for over six months.
Constitutional discipline requires all functionaries Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary to operate within their prescribed roles. When Governors delay assent without valid reasons, it risks breaching this discipline, undermining the democratic mandate of state legislatures. Conversely, judicial overreach in prescribing rigid timelines could encroach on executive discretion, violating the separation of powers.
International benchmarks offer insights. In Canada, a federal system with a Governor General, assent to Bills is typically a formality, with delays being rare and subject to political accountability. Australia’s Governor-General, under Section 58 of the Constitution, has similar discretionary powers but operates within conventions that prioritise timely action.
India could draw from such models to establish clearer norms for Governors, balancing discretion with accountability.
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 will be pivotal in clarifying the Governor’s powers and limitations. It must address whether timelines can be constitutionally mandated, the extent of judicial oversight over gubernatorial actions, and the interplay between Articles 200, 201, and 142. A balanced approach would recognise the Governor’s role as a constitutional check while ensuring that discretion does not become a tool for obstruction.
To strengthen India’s federal framework, the court could recommend guidelines rather than rigid timelines for Governors to act promptly, drawing on principles of constitutional discipline. Legislative reforms, such as amending Article 200 to include reasonable timeframes, could also be considered, though this requires political consensus.
Public discourse and democratic accountability remain vital. The electoral process, as seen in India’s robust democratic history, ensures that breaches of constitutional trust are addressed over time. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s guidance will shape the contours of India’s federal balance, ensuring that constitutional authorities uphold the spirit of cooperative federalism.
The President’s reference to the Supreme Court is a timely step toward resolving ambiguities in the Governor’s role. By providing clarity, the court can reinforce India’s constitutional framework, ensuring that the delicate balance between state autonomy and central oversight is preserved.
The path forward lies in fostering constitutional discipline, respecting the separation of powers, and upholding the democratic will of the people.
(The author is a Senior Advocate. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
