Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinion on Governor’s Powers

Understanding the Context

The nation’s discussion on federalism and constitutional balance has been rekindled by the Supreme Court’s recent advisory ruling regarding the extent of a governor’s powers. A number of states experienced political standoffs as a result of governors withholding laws, delaying assent, or returning legislation without sufficient cause. The Court’s ruling offers much-needed clarification on how the governor’s office must operate within the parameters of the constitution.

Limits on Discretionary Powers

The Governor is not an autonomous authority above the elected government, the Court stressed. His discretionary powers are restricted and must only be used in circumstances that the Constitution specifically specifies. It reaffirmed that the governor cannot serve as a substitute political center of power or sit indefinitely on legislation passed by the legislature. The ruling emphasizes that the governor’s primary duties are ceremonial and supervisory rather than executive.

Timely Processing of Bills

The Court’s stringent reading of Article 200, which controls the Governor’s assent to measures, is a major feature of the advisory decision. 

• According to the Court’s ruling, bills cannot be kept pending indefinitely.
• “As soon as possible” refers to appropriate and timely action rather than a protracted delay.
• When giving assent or returning bills, the Governor must follow the Council of Ministers’ recommendations.

The goal of this explanation is to lessen the increasing tendency of executive impasse between state governments and Raj Bhavan.

Strengthening Federal Balance

The Supreme Court reiterated that the Union and the states must respect one another in order for India’s federal system to function. The Center appoints governors, but they must function in a politically neutral manner. The Court cautioned that abuse of governor position distorts constitutional morals and threatens the democratic mandate. By restricting overreach and strengthening authority boundaries, the opinion promotes cooperative federalism.

Implications for State Governance

In states where important laws had stuck, the ruling is anticipated to speed up parliamentary proceedings. Additionally, it establishes a standard for upcoming conflicts involving:

• Postponement of calling assemblies
• Refusing to give consent without cause
• Abuse of discretion in times of constitutional emergency

The Supreme Court has made sure that the Governor’s office continues to be a stabilizing rather than a disruptive institution by outlining constitutional expectations.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation

Public Administration Optional Exam Preparation

About the Author: Jyoti Verma