Governors, Bills & Article 200: Supreme Court’s Concern on "Whims and Fancies"

✍️ By Suryavanshi IAS – For UPSC Aspirants

---

🔎 Context

On August 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India raised a crucial constitutional question: Can Governors derail the democratic process by simply withholding assent to Bills passed by elected State Assemblies under Article 200 of the Constitution?

The Bench, led by CJI B.R. Gavai, examined whether such a reading of Article 200 would make State governments helpless before the “whims and fancies” of Governors.

This issue goes to the heart of Centre-State relations, federalism, and the separation of powers—topics highly relevant for UPSC Prelims & Mains.

---

📜 Constitutional Provisions: Article 200 & 201

• Article 200 (Governor’s Assent to Bills):
  A Governor has the following options regarding a Bill passed by the State Legislature:

  1. Assent to the Bill → It becomes law.

  2. Withhold Assent → The Bill lapses (disputed interpretation).

  3. Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President → Especially in cases of repugnancy with Union laws.

  4. Return the Bill (except Money Bill) for reconsideration → If re-passed, the Governor is bound to give assent.

• Article 201: When a Bill is reserved for the President, the President may assent or withhold.

---

⚖️ Supreme Court Debate

Chief Justice’s Concern

• If Governors can indefinitely withhold assent, does it not mean elected State governments are at their mercy?

• This undermines the basic democratic principle that the elected legislature is supreme in law-making.

Solicitor General’s Argument (Tushar Mehta)

• Withholding assent should be used sparingly, in cases where:

  • The Bill violates Fundamental Rights, or

  • It undermines the democratic will of the nation.

• Governors are not “nobodies” – they represent the President of India.

Kapil Sibal’s Intervention

• If withholding assent makes a Bill lapse in States, the same logic should apply to the President under Article 111 for Parliamentary Bills.

• But this has never been the practice.

Justice Narasimha’s Observation

• Constitutional interpretation cannot be static.

• Founders presumed Governors and Speakers would act with dignity.

• But “present-day realities” (e.g., misuse of Tenth Schedule) show otherwise.

---

📌 Issues Involved

1. Democratic Accountability

   • Governors are unelected; Assemblies represent the people’s mandate.

   • Can unelected functionaries block the people’s will?

2. Federalism & Centre-State Tensions

   • Frequent disputes between States and Governors (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, Telangana).

   • Raises questions on the true spirit of cooperative federalism.

3. Judicial Review & Constitutional Morality

   • Should courts evolve new interpretations to prevent misuse?

   • Similar to how anti-defection law interpretation changed over time.

---

📚 Related UPSC Previous Year Questions

Prelims

Q. (2022) With reference to the “Governor of India,” consider the following statements:

1. The Governor has the power to reserve certain Bills for the President’s consideration.

2. The Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all matters.

Which of the above is/are correct?

• (A) 1 only ✅

• (B) 2 only

• (C) Both 1 and 2

• (D) Neither 1 nor 2

Explanation:
Governor can reserve Bills for the President (Art. 200). But he is not bound in all matters (e.g., discretion exists in certain cases).

---

Mains

Q. (2017, GS-II) “The Indian Constitution has provisions for holding joint sessions of the two Houses of Parliament. Enumerate the occasions when this would normally happen and also the occasions when it cannot be called.”

(Linked relevance: Role of President/Governor in law-making process.)

Q. (2022, GS-II) “Discuss the essential conditions for the exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of using the Governor’s discretion in delaying assent to State Bills.”

---

📝 Way Forward

• Codify timelines: Set a constitutional time frame for Governors to act on Bills.

• Limit discretionary powers: Ensure withholding assent cannot be used arbitrarily.

• Strengthen Federalism: Promote harmony between State Executives and Governors.

• Judicial Clarification: SC’s interpretation of Article 200 will set a crucial precedent.

---

🎯 UPSC Takeaway

• Article 200 is not just a procedural clause; it defines the balance of power between the Centre and States.

• The ongoing Supreme Court case could redefine the Governor’s role in Indian democracy.

• Aspirants must link this debate to:

  • Federalism (GS-II)

  • Separation of Powers

  • Constitutional Morality

  • Judicial Review

---

🔥 Suryavanshi IAS Tip for Mains:
Always quote Article 200 & 201, add examples from current disputes (Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala), and conclude with judicial reforms needed. This shows depth + current affairs integration.