Top court questions Governors' powers, federal harmony in handling state bills

India Today

5 hours ago

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether the country has lived up to the expectations of the Constitution's framers regarding harmony between the governor and the state government, as well as consultation on various issues between the two power centres.The observation came from a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, during the hearing of a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on the powers and discretion of governors and the president in dealing with Bills passed by state legislatures.advertisementSolicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, referred to the Constituent Assembly debates on the appointment and powers of governors.
He argued that the post is not a political refuge for retired politicians but carries significant responsibilities under the Constitution. "Governors are not just postmen. They represent the Union of India. An individual who is not directly elected is no less than those who are," he told the court.He emphasised that governors are expected to act with discretion, including options to pass, withhold, or refer a bill, but within the constitutional framework. He clarified that withholding a bill does not mean killing it outright.The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, engaged in a detailed discussion on Articles 200 and 201 and the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution. Justice Narsimha asked the Solicitor General to consider the constitutional use of the word "withhold", noting that it appears in multiple places in the Constitution.The court also explored whether governors, despite disagreeing with a bill, are obligated to exercise discretion in the first instance, or whether they have other options, with Mehta emphasising that governors have several courses of action but discretion must be exercised according to constitutional intent.The Solicitor General referred the court to Constituent Assembly debates, including remarks by Jawaharlal Nehru, highlighting that governors were envisioned as eminent individuals, sometimes from outside active politics, who could cooperate with the government while remaining slightly above party considerations.Such an arrangement, Mehta argued, would ensure smoother functioning of democratic machinery than if governors were entirely partisan. The court noted the influence of the American system in these debates and the ongoing litigation that has arisen from ambiguity in gubernatorial discretion.The top court also addressed the long pendency of bills with governors, noting that some legislation has remained pending since 2020. Mehta submitted that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president would amount to one organ of government assuming powers not granted by the Constitution, potentially leading to "constitutional disorder".He clarified that the government does not seek to confer absolute discretion on governors to reject bills, but rather to interpret their constitutional powers responsibly.advertisementDuring the hearing, the bench observed that the Presidential Reference would be considered in advisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction. President Droupadi Murmu had invoked Article 143(1) to seek clarity on whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the president on bills reserved by governors.The reference followed an April 8 ruling on Bills from the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which had prescribed a three-month timeline for presidential action on Bills reserved by governors.Mehta also walked the court through the drafting of the office of governor in the Draft Constitution, noting proposals that initially considered direct election by the people.He highlighted the historical significance and sanctity of the governor's office, clarifying that it is not an asylum for retired politicians. He also noted that debates on provincial versus central supremacy aimed to ensure a balanced federal framework and harmonious relations between governors and elected state governments.The bench probed the practical impact of gubernatorial discretion, asking whether a government elected with a majority would be at the whims of a governor. Mehta responded that all powers are granted by the Constitution and that discretion must be exercised within legal bounds.He cited examples during the COVID-19 pandemic when, irrespective of the party in power at the Centre, state governments and the PM coordinated effectively, showing how democratic functioning accommodates differing power centres while maintaining cooperation.- Ends
advertisement