Supreme Court Judgment on Governors' Powers
The Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal judgment in April 2025, addressing the issue of unelected Governors delaying Bills passed by State legislatures. The case, State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, mandated definitive timelines for Governors to grant assent, with the possibility of judicial intervention if these timelines were not met. This was seen as a significant victory for democracy, particularly for Opposition-ruled States.
Impact of the Judgment
- The decision aimed to prevent policy paralysis due to the misuse of gubernatorial powers.
- It promised to uphold legislative supremacy in the law-making process.
Reversal Through Presidential Reference
However, the Court later addressed a Presidential Reference in Special Reference No. 1 of 2025, which questioned the previous judgment’s imposition of timelines on Governors. This opinion, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, argued that the timelines lacked textual basis in the Constitution and that Governors’ discretionary powers allowed for delays.
Key Points from the Advisory Opinion
- The judgment by the Court was not overruled, but the advisory opinion carries substantial influence.
- Article 200 was portrayed as a framework for constitutional dialogue, requiring timely responses from both sides.
Controversy and Criticism
Critics argue that the advisory opinion undermines the democratic process by allowing Governors to delay Bills without consequence. The ability to refer Bills to the President after State legislatures reconsider them was seen as a constitutional loophole.
Implications of the Advisory Opinion
- The judgment in State of Tamil Nadu was initially seen as curbing Governors' ability to obstruct legislative processes by imposing timelines.
- The advisory opinion reverses these limitations, allowing unfettered discretion for referring Bills to the President.
Concerns Over Checks and Balances
The Court's invocation of 'checks and balances' was criticized for justifying expansive gubernatorial powers, potentially frustrating legislative processes. The necessity for judicial review of laws, rather than preemptive denial of assent, was emphasized.
Conclusion
The Court’s opinion is seen as a constitutional retrogression, reinforcing Union dominance over States and hindering legislative efficiency. This issue calls for further constitutional amendments to address timelines for Governors to clear Bills.
