Closing argument: The Presidential Reference seeks to undermine a settled question, Pg8

• Supreme Court (April 8, 2025) ruled withholding assent to Bills by Governors is “illegal” and “erroneous”.

• Judgment clarified roles of Governor and President in granting assent to State Bills.

• Centre invoked Article 143 (Presidential Reference) to seek Court’s ‘opinion’ on already settled questions.

• Court had stated that Governors can't delay Bills indefinitely, even though the Constitution lacks a timeline.

• The Centre’s move seen as an attempt to reopen settled constitutional interpretations.

• Judgment basis: Based on earlier rulings, Constituent Assembly debates, and federal principles, the SC emphasized Governors have no arbitrary authority to stall legislation from elected Assemblies.

• Governor’s misuse: Instances of Governors acting politically, especially in non-aligned States, have worsened Centre-State ties.

• Article 143 reference: Centre could have accepted or amended the law to align with the judgment; instead, it sought a non-binding advisory opinion, which doesn’t override existing rulings.

• Legal criticism: Constitutional experts argue this undermines judicial finality and sends signals of central overreach in a federal democracy.

• Democratic ethos: Governors are not elected and must not obstruct the mandate of an elected Assembly.

• Article 143: Empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on legal matters; opinion is advisory, not binding.

• Assent to Bills (Article 200 & 201): Governor can give assent, withhold, or reserve for Presidential consideration, but cannot delay indefinitely.

• Judicial Review vs Advisory Opinion: A judgment is binding, whereas an advisory opinion is not; both differ in legal authority.

• Federalism: Balance of power between Centre and States; arbitrary Governor actions tilt this balance undemocratically.

• Reinforces constitutional limits on unelected authorities like Governors.

• Asserts judicial supremacy in interpreting constitutional roles.

• Highlights need for institutional consensus, not executive circumvention, to resolve Centre-State tensions.

• Calls for political dialogue, possibly via CM-Centre meets, to address residual friction post-judgment.

Mains Mock Question:

“Critically examine the constitutional and federal implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment on the Governor’s role in assent to State Bills. How does the Centre’s Presidential Reference challenge the principle of separation of powers?”