Our new legal doctrine: Infinite elasticity with Centre pulling the strings, Pg12

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court's advisory opinion on Article 200 regarding gubernatorial powers introduces ambiguity, potentially undermining representative government.
• The Court affirmed that a governor must return a bill with reasons if not assented to, but retains discretion in granting or withholding assent.
• The judgment invalidates indicative time-lines for governors to act on bills, previously established in the Tamil Nadu v Governor of Tamil Nadu case.
• The Court suggests it may intervene in cases of gubernatorial inaction, but provides no clear guidelines for such intervention.

Detailed Insights:

• The core issue revolves around governors allegedly acting as political agents of the Union, frustrating the representative process through prolonged inaction on bills.
• The "dialogic" theory of Article 200 treats the governor and legislature as jointly participating in producing law, requiring the governor's assent.
• The concept of "elasticity" in discretionary functioning is deemed essential but cannot justify indefinite inaction that nullifies the democratic mandate.
• Requiring state governments to litigate to vindicate legislative supremacy distorts the separation of powers, potentially politicizing the judiciary.
• The advisory opinion lacks clear criteria for judicial intervention, inviting more litigation and strategic political behavior, expanding judicial power.
• The ruling potentially allows the central government to exert greater control through governors, impacting federalism and state autonomy.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 200: Deals with the Governor's role in assenting to bills passed by the State Legislature.
• Gubernatorial Discretion: The power of the Governor to act according to their own judgment.
• Separation of Powers: The division of governmental powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.