Context & The Gist
The Supreme Court’s recent opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference, concerning timelines for Governors and the President to act on State Bills, has sparked debate about the balance of power between the Centre and States.
The article argues that the Court’s decision, while attempting a constitutional balancing act, ultimately weakens federalism by granting Governors unchecked powers to delay or block State legislation without constitutional accountability.
Key Arguments & Nuances
- Erosion of Timelines & Safeguards: The Court rejected the imposition of fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills, deeming it an infringement on their functions. It also curtailed the use of Article 142 to grant ‘deemed assent’ after a specific period.
- Contradiction of Previous Judgments: The ruling contradicts a prior judgment (April 2025) that had prescribed three-month timelines and utilized Article 142 for deemed assent, highlighting an inconsistency in the Court’s approach.
- Interpretation of Constitutional Text: The Court’s interpretation of Articles 200 and 201, particularly the phrase “as soon as possible,” was deemed too ‘elastic’ to enforce timelines, effectively rendering the constitutional text unenforceable.
- Governor’s Discretion & Aid and Advice: The article contends that the Court’s assertion of Governor’s autonomy contradicts constitutional history, as the framers deliberately removed the phrase “in his discretion” from relevant Articles.
- Presidential Reference & Indefinite Delay: The judgment allows Governors to refer Bills to the President even after the State Assembly re-passes them, potentially leading to indefinite delays as the President faces no obligation to consult the Court.
UPSC Syllabus Relevance
- Polity: Federal Structure & Centre-State Relations (GS Paper II)
- Governance: Constitutional Framework, Role of Governor, Executive Powers (GS Paper II)
- Law and Justice: Judicial Review, Interpretation of Constitution, Article 142, Article 200 & 201 (GS Paper II)
Prelims Data Bank
- Article 200: Deals with the Governor’s power to give assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature.
- Article 201: Relates to the procedure for Bills that require the President’s assent.
- Article 142: Grants the Supreme Court the power to pass decrees and make orders to do complete justice in any case.
- Punchhi Commission: Recommended a six-month period for Governors to decide on Bills.
- Government of India Act, 1935: Contained the phrase “in his discretion” regarding the Governor’s powers, which was removed during the framing of the Indian Constitution.
Mains Critical Analysis
The Supreme Court’s ruling presents a complex challenge to the principles of federalism and constitutional accountability. The decision, while rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers, appears to tilt the balance in favor of the executive, potentially leading to executive overreach.
Challenges
- Increased Scope for Delay: The absence of timelines and the Governor’s power to repeatedly refer Bills to the President create opportunities for indefinite delays in enacting State legislation.
- Weakening of Legislative Sovereignty: The ability of Governors to reserve Bills even after re-passage by the Assembly undermines the sovereignty of the State Legislature.
- Lack of Recourse for States: States have limited mechanisms to challenge arbitrary delays or ensure timely action on their Bills.
Opportunities
- Reinforcing Executive Prerogative: The ruling can be seen as upholding the executive’s inherent power to review legislation and ensure its alignment with constitutional principles.
- Promoting Deliberation: The possibility of referral to the President could encourage greater deliberation and scrutiny of State Bills.
The core issue lies in the Court’s interpretation of “as soon as possible” in Article 200. The ruling effectively renders this constitutional provision unenforceable, removing a crucial procedural safeguard for State legislation. This creates a critical gap in the constitutional framework, potentially leading to increased friction between the Centre and States.
Value Addition
- S.R. Bommai Case (1994): This landmark case affirmed the importance of federalism and limited the scope of President’s Rule.
- Inter-State Council: Established under Article 263 of the Constitution, it serves as a platform for Centre-State consultation and coordination.
- “Cooperative Federalism” : A concept emphasizing collaboration and mutual respect between the Centre and States.
- Quote: “Federalism is more than an agreement to divide powers… it is a system of shared governance.” – Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
The Way Forward
- Immediate Measure: The Centre should initiate consultations with States to establish broad guidelines for Governors to act on Bills within a reasonable timeframe.
- Long-term Reform: Consider a constitutional amendment to explicitly define a timeframe for Governors and the President to act on State Bills, potentially incorporating the Punchhi Commission’s recommendation of six months.