Governors’ Discretion Under Article 200: Judicial Trends & Accountability

 

Governors’ Discretion Under Article 200: Judicial Trends & Accountability

Introduction

The recent Presidential Reference before the Constitution Bench (CJ B.R. Gavai, Justices Vikram Nath & P.S. Narasimha) saw a powerful assertion: Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to state bills, nor obstruct constitutional governance. As Justice Narasimha emphasized, “No organ can impair the functioning of the Constitution.”

States like Tamil Nadu (A.M. Singhvi, P. Wilson) and West Bengal (Kapil Sibal) reiterated that a Governor is not royalty—legislation is sovereign and must not wait for whimsical delays.

---

Constitutional Framework: Article 200

Under Article 200, a Governor has four possible actions when a bill is presented:

1. Grant assent – the bill becomes law.

2. Withhold assent – effectively rejecting.

3. Return for reconsideration (non–Money Bills).

4. Reserve for the President’s consideration (limited cases).

Importantly, the phrase “as soon as possible” mandates prompt action, though the Constitution doesn’t specify exact timelines.

---

Judicial Interpretation & Landmark Judgments

1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)

A seven-judge Bench held that Governors must act per ministerial advice, except in very narrow circumstances under the second proviso of Article 200

2. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)

The SC ruled that the Governor’s discretion under Article 163 cannot be arbitrary or whimsical, reinforcing accountability.

3. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)

A seminal ruling on 8 April 2025:

• Declared no absolute or pocket veto under Article 200.

• Governor’s options are limited to the three constitutional actions.

• Time-bound framework established:

  • 1 month to assent or reserve (with Cabinet advice).

  • 3 months to withhold against Cabinet advice with reasons.

  • 1 month to assent to a re-passed bill.

• Judicial review of delays endorsed; "deemed assent" may be applied under Article 142 in exceptional cases.

4. Recent Presidential Reference – Constitutional Bench (Sep 2025)

During hearings, the five-judge bench, led by CJI Gavai, questioned whether blanket timelines for Governors and the President could be mandated by the Court—highlighting constitutional limits on judicial reach.

Meanwhile, the Court also pondered whether, if it can impose deemed assent, it could similarly assume other functions of the Governor.

UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs) & Mains Practice

• PYQ (Insights on India): "Examine the question of justiciability of Governor’s assent to state bills in recent context. Refer relevant case laws." (150 words)

• Drishti IAS Mains Question: "The discretionary powers of the Governor have become a source of constitutional friction rather than federal harmony." Discuss and suggest reforms. (250 words)

---

Implications & UPSC Relevance

• Strengthening federalism: Curbing arbitrary delays reaffirms the supremacy of elected state legislatures.

• Clear timelines: Reduces ambiguity in legislative process, preventing “pocket veto.”

• Judicial review: Ensures accountability while respecting constitutional boundaries.

• UPSC value: Excellent for essay and answer writing, especially for Governance and Polity segments.

---

Suggested Answer Structure (for Mains)

Introduction

Introduce Article 200 and ambiguity around “as soon as possible.”

Body

1. Discretionary misuse → Mention Tamil Nadu delays; define “pocket veto.”

2. Judicial interventions → Outline key cases: Shamsher Singh (1974), Nabam Rebia (2016), TN case (2025), and the pending Presidential Reference.

3. UPSC context → Tie in PYQs and expected issues.

4. Reforms proposed:

   • Codify timelines (via legislation).

   • Increase transparency—require explanation.

   • Consider vesting states with limited authority to appeal directly if Governor delays unduly.

Conclusion

Affirm need to balance constitutional structure with democratic efficiency.