Supreme Court Hearings on Presidential Reference
The hearings following the Supreme Court judgment on April 8, 2025, focused on clarifying the constitutional powers of the Governor and the President in providing assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies. The major outcome confirmed that Governors should not withhold assent indefinitely.
Key Observations
- Constitutional Principles: The five-judge Bench's observations largely aligned with the principles elucidated in the April judgment, emphasizing that constitutional offices should not hinder democratic governance through inaction.
- Role of the Supreme Court: Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, questioned if the Court should remain "powerless" as Governors potentially render State legislatures ineffective.
- Examination of Articles 200 and 201:
- States' counsel debated along political lines based on the ruling parties of their respective States.
- The absence of specific timelines in these Articles does not imply unlimited discretion for Governors.
- Governor's Role: The Solicitor-General's argument that Governors serve as a "check on hasty legislation" was contested by the Bench, highlighting a tension with democratic principles. Justice Vikram Nath stated that Governors should not indefinitely delay legislative wisdom.
Political Implications
- Delays in Opposition-ruled States indicate selective application of constitutional provisions.
- Judicial review inconsistencies were noted between Governors' recommendations under Article 356 and actions under Article 200.
Constitutional Framework
- The April judgment's framework was deemed constitutionally sound, maintaining a balance between federal cooperation and State autonomy.
- The Centre's choice of using a Presidential Reference under Article 143 instead of other judicial procedures was questioned.
- The final reply to the Reference should lead the Centre to adhere to constitutional boundaries without altering the federal balance.
