Context

• The role of the Governor in India’s constitutional scheme has long been a subject of debate, especially in relation to legislative assent under Article 200.
• Recent judicial interventions, including the Supreme Court’s judgments in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023) and The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (2025), have reignited this discourse.
• By prescribing a time limit of three months for Governors and the President to act on Bills, the Court sought to address a persistent constitutional deadlock.
• However, this directive has raised questions about judicial overreach and the balance of powers.

The Constitutional Framework of Article 200

• Article 200 provides the Governor with four options when a Bill is passed by a state legislature:
  • To assent to the Bill.
  • To withhold assent.
  • To return the Bill (if it is not a money bill) for reconsideration.
  • To reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
• On its face, this provision seems to give significant powers to the Governor.
• However, under Article 163, the Governor is required to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in explicitly stated situations.
• This establishes the principle that the Governor is not an independent executive authority but a constitutional head.

The Debate on Discretion and Judicial Precedents

• The Debate on Discretion
  • A crucial question has been whether Article 200 allows the Governor to act at his own discretion.
  • Historically, the Government of India Act, 1935 contained a similar provision (Section 75) but explicitly used the phrase ‘in his discretion’.
  • The omission of this phrase in the Constitution of India indicates that the framers intended to exclude any element of discretion from the Governor’s powers under Article 200.
• Judicial Precedents
  • In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Court recognised a narrow discretionary space for Governors under Article 200.
  • In Nabam Rebia (2016), the Court reaffirmed the principle that the Governor must act on ministerial advice.
  • Most recently, in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Court categorically rejected the idea of independent discretion, warning against turning the Governor into a super-constitutional figure capable of paralyzing the legislature.
  • Thus, while commissions such as Sarkaria and Punchhi have acknowledged rare situations where discretion might be justified (e.g., patently unconstitutional Bills), the dominant constitutional position remains that the Governor is bound by the advice of the elected government.

The Problem of Delay and the Judicial Response

• One of the most pressing issues has been the indefinite delays by Governors in acting on Bills.
• Several States have witnessed situations where Governors sat on crucial Bills for years, neither assenting, returning, nor reserving them.
• Such inaction effectively thwarts the legislative process and undermines the will of the people expressed through their representatives.
• The Constitution itself does not prescribe a timeline under Articles 200 or 201. Yet, the Supreme Court, recognizing the constitutional vacuum, fixed a three-month limit for action.
• Critics, including sections of the media and the Union Government, argue that such timelines amount to judicial law-making.
• However, the Court justified its intervention by pointing to the necessity of ensuring that the spirit of federalism and representative democracy is not frustrated by constitutional heads.

The Union’s Role and Article 355

• Recent SC judgements raise a significant question; If Governors fail to act, can the Union intervene?
• Article 355 obligates the Union to ensure that State governments function in accordance with the Constitution.
• A creative interpretation of this provision would allow the Union to direct Governors to fulfil their constitutional duties.
• However, in practice, the Union has never exercised this responsibility, compelling judicial intervention as the only available remedy.

Broader Constitutional Implications of the Supreme Court Judgements

• The Court’s judgments represent an assertion of judicial creativity in constitutional interpretation.
• Critics argue that by imposing timelines, the judiciary has ventured into legislative or constitutional amendment.
• Yet, as seen in earlier cases such as Maneka Gandhi (1978), where Article 21 was expanded through judicial interpretation, the Court has consistently played a role in adapting constitutional provisions to new and unforeseen challenges.
• The real issue lies not in judicial overreach but in the failure of political and constitutional functionaries to respect the basic framework of the Constitution.

Conclusion

• The debate over Article 200 highlights the tension between constitutional theory and political practice.
• The omission of discretion from the Constitution reflects the framers’ intent to subordinate the Governor’s role to the elected government.
• However, political misuse and inaction have necessitated judicial intervention.
• By imposing a time limit and reaffirming the Governor’s lack of independent discretion, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principles of parliamentary democracy and cooperative federalism.