Why in the News?

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on November 20, 2025, in response to a Presidential Reference under Article 143, has reignited debates on the scope of Governors’ discretionary powers in assenting to state bills. Stemming from the Tamil Nadu government’s prolonged standoff with Governor R.N. Ravi over 10 withheld bills, the opinion clarifies that while Governors cannot indefinitely stall legislation, courts lack the authority to impose binding timelines or grant “deemed assent.”

Historical Evolution of the Governor’s Office

Instituted under Article 153 of the Constitution, the Governor serves as the constitutional head of a state, appointed by the President (Article 155), and acts generally on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 163). However, the framers envisioned limited discretion to safeguard federal balance, particularly in hung assemblies or emergencies. Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution (1865) influenced this model, likening the Governor to a ceremonial monarch with veto powers exercised judiciously.

• Constituent Assembly Debates: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described the Governor as a “friend, philosopher, and guide,” but cautioned against misuse, rejecting proposals for elected Governors to preserve Union oversight.
• Post-Independence Shifts: The 1960s-70s saw “Governor’s rule” (Article 356) abused during Congress dominance, prompting Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommendations for timely bill processing and non-partisan appointments.
• Judicial Interventions: Landmarks like Nabam Rebia (2016) and Shivraj Singh Chouhan (2020) emphasized ministerial advice, curbing arbitrary dissolutions.

This backdrop reveals the Governor’s role as a federal sentinel, evolving from a stabilizing force to a flashpoint in asymmetric federalism.

Key Commissions and Recommendations on Governor’s Role

Commission/Report	Year	Key Recommendations on Discretion	Impact/Implementation
Sarkaria Commission	1988	Governors should act on ministerial advice except in discretion areas; process bills within 3 months; avoid partisan politics.	Partial; led to Article 356 curbs via 44th Amendment but ignored in practice.
Punchhi Commission	2010	Fix 6-month timeline for bill assent; mandatory reasons for delays; collegium for appointments.	Advisory; influenced 2016 Nabam Rebia but not codified.
M.M. Punchhi (2nd ARC)	2007	Limit discretion to constitutional necessities; judicial review of actions.	Incorporated in judicial precedents like Punjab (2023).
Sarkaria (Revisited)	2023 (NITI Aayog)	Digital tracking of bills; training for Governors.	Pending; highlights ongoing federal friction.

Constitutional Framework: Article 200 and Discretionary Powers

Article 200 mandates the Governor to declare assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve bills for the President’s consideration (Article 201). The provision ensures legislative sovereignty while allowing federal checks, but lacks explicit timelines, fostering ambiguity.

Options Available to the Governor Under Article 200

The November 2025 opinion reaffirms three viable options, rejecting a “fourth” (pocket veto or indefinite withholding) as unconstitutional.

• Grant Assent: Default for non-controversial bills; binds the state upon gazette notification.
• Withhold Assent and Return: Under the first proviso, return with a message for reconsideration; must be “forthwith” if re-passed, per Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025).
• Reserve for President: For bills repugnant to Union laws (Article 254) or high national interest; President’s decision is final but justiciable for mala fides.

Comparative Analysis of Governor’s Options and Judicial Interpretations

Option	Constitutional Basis	Judicial Safeguards	Potential Misuse
Assent	Article 200 (implied default)	Ministerial advice binding (Shamsher Singh, 1974)	Rare; delays pre-assent stage.
Withhold & Return	First Proviso, Article 200	Reasons mandatory; re-passage mandates assent (TN v. Gov., April 2025)	Stalling via repeated returns (hypothetical).
Reserve for President	Second Proviso, Article 200	Justiciable if arbitrary (Nabam Rebia, 2016); no veto power.	Overuse in political vendetta, e.g., Kerala (2023).
Pocket Veto (Invalid)	None	Prohibited; indefinite delay = mala fide (Punjab v. Gov., 2023)	Historical abuse, e.g., Bihar (1960s).

The Tamil Nadu Case: A Chronicle of Constitutional Stalemate

The dispute exemplifies gubernatorial overreach in an opposition-ruled state, highlighting federal faultlines.

Timeline of Events

• 2020-2023: Tamil Nadu Assembly passes 12 bills on education, industry, and welfare; Governor Ravi (appointed 2021) delays assent for 2-3 years.
• November 2023: State approaches SC under Article 32; Governor reserves 2 bills for President, prompting re-passage of remaining 10.
• January 2024: Re-passed 10 bills re-presented; Governor reserves them for President, invoking “substantial question” under Article 254.
• April 8, 2025: Two-judge Bench (Justices Pardiwala & Mahadevan) rules delays “illegal and arbitrary”; invokes Article 142 for “deemed assent” to 10 bills (effective November 18, 2023); sets 3-month gubernatorial and 1-month Presidential timelines.

Substantive Critique: The judgment invoked Manohar Lal (1961) to deem withholding without return as invalid, but the 3-month cap was seen as judicial legislation, prompting the Presidential Reference.

Presidential Reference and Supreme Court’s November 2025 Opinion

Under Article 143(1), President Droupadi Murmu referred questions on the April judgment’s validity, seeking clarity on timelines, deemed assent, and justiciability.

Key Holdings of the Five-Judge Bench (CJI Gavai et al.)

• No Binding Timelines: Courts cannot prescribe fixed periods, as it encroaches on constitutional functionaries’ discretion; “forthwith” means “promptly” but contextually variable.
• Rejection of Deemed Assent: Article 142 empowers “complete justice” but not bill enactment; assent is an executive act, not judicially supplanted.
• Three Options Only: Governor’s discretion is “amplitude-laden” but non-arbitrary; indefinite delays violative of legislative supremacy (Article 200’s intent).
• Justiciability Affirmed: Actions reviewable for mala fides or unreasonableness (State of Rajasthan v. Union, 1977); aid and advice binding except in discretion zones.

Challenges and Reform Imperatives

Despite clarifications, ambiguities persist, demanding structural fixes.

Persistent Hurdles

• Enforcement Gaps: No penalty for delays; SC’s “forthwith” lacks teeth without metrics.
• Appointment Bias: Article 155’s Presidential discretion favors ruling party loyalists (e.g., Ravi’s RSS background).
• Judicial Overload: Article 32 petitions strain resources; High Courts (Article 226) underutilized.

Way Forward: A Multi-Pronged Approach

• Legislative: Amend Article 200 for 3-6 month timelines; mandatory disclosures via RTI.
• Institutional: Punchhi-inspired selection panel (PM, LoP, CJI); annual performance audits by CAG.
• Judicial: Evolve “reasonableness” doctrine with presumptive timelines (e.g., 1 month for returns).
• Political: Tripartite dialogues via Inter-State Council; emulate Canada’s Lieutenant Governors for neutrality.

Conclusion: Towards a Tempered Discretion

The Supreme Court’s November 2025 opinion deftly calibrates gubernatorial amplitude—affirming latitude against judicial fiat while proscribing paralysis—yet underscores the need for proactive reforms to honor federal ethos. As Tamil Nadu’s 10 bills languish post-reference, the verdict signals that discretion, untethered, erodes democratic dividends. For Amrit Kaal’s Viksit Bharat, Governors must evolve from veto wielders to harmony harbingers, ensuring state legislations propel inclusive growth.

Source: The amplitude of gubernatorial discretion – The Hindu

UPSC CSE PYQ

Year	Question
2025	The discretionary powers of the Governor have become a source of constitutional friction rather than federal harmony.
2022	The exercise of discretionary power by any office has the moral obligation of objectivity and impartiality. However, the powers bestowed in the office of the Governor are often mired with controversy. Analyze.
2019	Discuss the discretionary powers of the Governor and their impact on the functioning of the state government.