Editorial 1: Constitutional clarity

Context

Through the Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court has underscored that prolonged gubernatorial delays in assent undermine democratic governance.

Introduction

The Presidential Reference hearings following the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment revisited the powers of Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills. The proceedings reaffirmed that indefinite delays by Governors undermine democratic governance. By addressing 14 questions, the five-judge Bench reinforced constitutional principles and examined the federal balance between the Centre and States.

Core Issue from April 2025 Judgment

• The Presidential Reference hearings arose after the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment, clarifying Governor and President’s powers on assent to Bills.
• Judges reaffirmed that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent and must act in line with constitutional intent.
• CJI B.R. Gavai questioned if the Court should remain “powerless” while Governors paralyse legislatures, echoing concerns about blocking democratic functioning.

Key Arguments in the Hearings

• States’ counsel presented arguments influenced by political contexts, but the Bench focused on Articles 200 and 201.
• The claim that constitutional silence on timelines allows unlimited discretion for Governors was firmly rejected.
• The Solicitor-General called Governors a “check on hasty legislation”, but this was seen as conflicting with democratic principles.
• Justice Vikram Nath asserted that Governors “cannot sit over the wisdom of the legislature indefinitely.”

Federal Balance and Selective Application

• Kerala’s counsel highlighted that Opposition-ruled States alone face prolonged delays, pointing to selective application rather than constitutional vagueness.
• The Bench examined why judicial review applies under Article 356 (President’s Rule) but not under Article 200, exposing inconsistency.
• The hearings emphasized that the April judgment’s framework is constitutionally sound and preserves federal cooperation and State autonomy.

Centre’s Approach and Constitutional Boundaries

• The Centre’s choice of Article 143 (Presidential Reference), instead of review or curative petitions, raised questions about intent.
• Scholars note that an Article 143 advisory opinion cannot override a binding Article 141 precedent.
• If genuine clarity was sought, judicial remedies already existed.
• The Court’s final opinion should guide the Centre to respect constitutional boundaries and avoid disrupting the federal balance.

Conclusion

The hearings on the Presidential Reference reaffirm the April 2025 judgment as a cornerstone of federal balance. By rejecting indefinite gubernatorial discretion and reinforcing the importance of State autonomy, the Court protected democratic governance. The Centre must now accept these constitutional boundaries, rather than seek expanded powers, to preserve the spirit of cooperative federalism envisioned in the Indian Constitution.