Can timelines be fixed for Governors?
The story so far:
TThe Supreme Court currently felt a presidential reference on 14 questions surrounding the interpretation of 200 and 201 of the Constitution in May 2025.
What is the current reference?
The current reference is the result of the Supreme Court decision in April 2025 (Tamil Nadu and Anr Governor against Tamil Nadu province) The governors and the President determined the timeline to move on the invoices passed through the state legislatures. Contrary to the advice of the Ministers of the State Council, the Governor had decided that he should do it within three months if he would keep or separate the bill for the evaluation of the President. In addition, if a law of law is re -released by the state legislature, the governor will approve of this bill. The President envisaged a three -month time schedule to decide on the state invoices reserved for taking into account. The court also decided that the decisions in these invoices, including delays beyond the timetables provided by the governors and the President, would be subject to judicial examination.
The government asked questions about the authority to prescribe time schedules when not mentioned in the Constitution.
What does the constitution say?
When Article 200 of the Constitution is submitted to the governor for the consent of a law adopted by a state legislature, there are four alternatives: (a) The bill may approve the draft law, ie reject the bill; (c) may return the bill to re -evaluate the state legislature; or (d) may devote the invoice for the attention of the President.
As it was kept by the Supreme Court in various cases Shamsher Singh The case (1974) does not exercise its optional powers when receiving approval for a bill of law. He must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers. The return of any draft law to the state legislature for re -evaluation should also be made based on the recommendation of the Ministry. This can be done if the government thinks that the bill needs changes, as explained by TT Krishnamachari in the Constituent Assembly. If the governor is re -accepted by the state legislature, he will approve such a bill.
When it comes to allocating any draft laws in order to consider the President, the governor must devote certain invoices such as those who reduce the powers of the Supreme Court. In order to ensure the functioning of its provisions despite a trade union law, it may allocate certain invoices based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, such as those related to a subject numbered on the simultaneous list. Only under rare conditions, the governor may use a bill that he can use under his / her discretion and that the provisions of the bill are contrary to any of the constitutional provisions and therefore distinguishes the President to take into account.
The Constitution does not set any time limit that the governor should decide on any bills of laws submitted for his consent. The main part of the 200 article states that after submitting a bill to the governor, it does not deserve the bill or that it approves or reserves the invoice to take into account the President. The requirement of the article adds that the Governor can return the bill as soon as possible ‘for the re -evaluation of the state legislature.
What are the suggestions?
The Sarkaria Commission (1987) stated that only the rare patent can be implied as a optional power of the governor under the contrary to the constitution, but only the reservation of the invoices in order to evaluate the President. Apart from such extraordinary cases, the governor must perform his functions in accordance with 200 articles according to the advice of the ministers. Furthermore, the President (Central Government) was proposed to dispose of these invoices within a maximum of six months. The Punchhi Commission (2010) suggested that the governor should make a decision on a bill offered for his consent within six months.
What are the arguments?
Article 163 (1) of the Constitution requires the governor to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers as long as he must act according to his / her discretion by the Constitution or below. ARTICLE 163 (2) Furthermore, if any questions arise as to whether the issue is a matter that the governor should act according to his discretion, he predicts that the decision of the governor will be final and questioned in such cases.
The center argued that the governor had discretion according to the above article, which could not be questioned by the courts, and as a result, the schedule could never be corrected. In addition, the President increased objections to the three -month time zone envisaged to decide on separated invoices. The article 201, which deals with this issue, does not foresee any time schedule. In a state, the governor and the President claimed that any problem between the elected government should be solved politically within the framework of the constitution and that the courts could not be a referee for such a dead end.
However, the states in the opposition decision argued that the governors in such states selected or selected invoices selectively or selected the consent or invoices against the advice of the Council of Ministers. They claimed that such deliberate delays could not be called discretionary authority and disrespect the popular duty of the state people.
What should be the road that goes forward?
All problems mentioned above are in the nature of the symptoms. The underlying disease, which disturbed our federal installation, has been the politicization of the Guernnatorial duty. Many political leaders who started Nitish Kumar from CN Annadurai called for the abolition of the governor’s task in the past. However, according to our constitutional plan, the nominal president of the state administrator, such as the President of the Union Manager, is needed.
However, federalism is also a fundamental feature of our Constitution, and the governor’s Office should not weaken the powers of popular governments in the states.
The court usually uses restrictions when predicting time scratches for action by the constitutional authorities where none of them are provided in the Constitution. However, when there were irrational delays, the court foresee the timeline as in the past. KM Singh case (2020) left a three -month period to decide to disqualify the tenth program of the speakers.
In his decision in April 2025, the Supreme Court deliberately interpreted the words in Article 200. He interpreted that the main part of the 200 article uses the words ‘governor’ and therefore this was not an optional force. He was relying on his own past decisions, including. Nabam Rebia case (2006), in 2016, as well as various commissions, as well as recommendations to prescribe the three -month timeline for actions by the governors and the President.
The center and governors should follow the timeline envisaged by the April 2025 decision to support democratic and federal principles. I hope that the Supreme Court’s opinion in the presidential reference will reiterate this position.
Rangarajan. R is the author of an old IAS officer and ‘simplified committee software’. Currently, civil servants are training at the IAS Academy. The views expressed are personal.
Published – 22 September 2025 08:30 IST
