What does the SC’s advisory opinion imply?, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion on a Presidential reference under Article 143, largely negating a prior ruling.
• The reference stemmed from an April 2025 judgment that set a three-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on State Bills.
• The five-judge Bench stated Governors have discretion under Article 200 regarding assenting to, reserving, or returning Bills.
• The Court held that decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable before a Bill becomes law, disallowing "deemed assent".

Detailed Insights:

• The Presidential reference questioned the judiciary's authority to prescribe timelines not in the Constitution, specifically for Governors and the President.
• The Court clarified that while Governors have discretion, prolonged inaction could warrant a mandamus compelling them to act on pending Bills.
• The opinion interprets previous cases like Shamsher Singh (1974) differently, suggesting actions under Article 200 fall under the Governor's discretionary powers.
• Commissions like the Sarkaria Commission (1987) and Punchhi Commission (2010) have offered differing views on the Governor's discretionary powers and timelines.
• The politicization of the gubernatorial post remains a concern, potentially undermining the legislative intent of elected State governments.
• The advisory opinion emphasizes the need for Governors to act with urgency and responsibility in assenting to Bills passed by State legislatures to maintain federalism.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 143: Grants the President the power to consult the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact.
• Article 200: Deals with the Governor's role in assenting to Bills passed by the State legislature.
• Article 201: Concerns the President's power regarding Bills reserved by the Governor for presidential consideration.
• Justiciable: Subject to trial and review in a court of law.