Constitutional clarity, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• Hearings on the Presidential Reference regarding the powers of the Governor and the President in assenting to State Bills largely confirmed that Governors should not indefinitely withhold assent.
• The Supreme Court's five-judge Bench observations converged on constitutional principles elucidated in the April 8, 2025 judgment.
• The Chief Justice of India questioned whether the Court should remain "powerless" while Governors make State legislatures defunct through inaction.
• The Court examined potential inconsistencies in arguments defending unlimited discretion for Governors under Article 200.

Detailed Insights:

• The core concern is that constitutional offices cannot paralyze democratic governance through inaction, as highlighted in the April judgment.
• Arguments that the Constitution's silence on specific timelines in Articles 200 and 201 does not grant unlimited discretion to Governors remains compelling.
• The Bench indicated a tension between the idea of Governors serving as a check on hasty legislation and democratic principles.
• Prolonged delays in assenting to bills have largely affected Opposition-ruled States, suggesting selective application of the constitutional framework.
• An advisory opinion by the Court under Article 143 does not override a binding judgment under Article 141.
• The Centre should accept the constitutional boundaries reinforced by the April judgment and the proceedings, maintaining the federal balance.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 200: Deals with the Governor's power to grant assent to bills passed by the State Legislature.
• Article 201: Deals with the Governor reserving certain bills for the President's consideration.
• Article 141: Declares that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
• Article 143: Grants the President the power to consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact.