Restoring the ‘menace’ of unfettered discretion, Pg6

Key Highlights:

• In April 2025, the Supreme Court mandated timelines for Governors to assent to Bills, allowing judicial intervention for violations.
• In Special Reference No. 1 of 2025, the Court reversed this stance, stating judicially imposed timelines on the Governor had no textual basis in the Constitution.
• The Court stated that the discretionary powers of the Governors and the President have an elasticity that could accommodate delays in assenting to Bills.
• The Court’s advisory opinion carries persuasive weight, potentially undermining legislative supremacy and State autonomy.

Detailed Insights:

• The initial April 2025 verdict aimed to prevent Governors from obstructing Opposition-ruled States by indefinitely delaying assent to Bills.
• The Court's recent stance in Special Reference No. 1 of 2025 favors a more expansive interpretation of gubernatorial powers, potentially leading to policy paralysis.
• The judgment allows Governors to refer Bills to the President even after the State Assembly has reconsidered them, creating a potential constitutional black hole.
• The Court's interpretation undermines the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, granting Governors unfettered discretion.
• The concept of 'checks and balances' is invoked to justify expansive interpretation, but it may frustrate the functioning of the legislative branch.
• The verdict is seen as a retreat from principled restraint on gubernatorial power and an unwanted fillip to the Union’s domination over the States.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 200: Deals with the Governors’ power to give assent to a Bill, and its provisos.
• Presidential Reference: The power of the President of India to consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact.
• Checks and Balances: A system ensuring no single branch of government can exert absolute power.