A conscious reaffirmation

The Apex Court has walked a constitutional tightrope in its opinion on the Governor's actions on legislation, says Amal Chandra

- 

The Supreme Court's recent verdict on the presidential reference concerning governors' powers over state Bills goes well beyond procedural tidying. It strikes at the core of India's federal structure, the limits of constitutional discretion, and the demands of democratic accountability. In a unanimous opinion by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, the Court declined to impose fixed timelines on governors or the President for granting assent, yet warned that "indefinite inaction" is impermissible. The ruling thus attempts a careful recalibration -protecting the Constitution's intended flexibility while recognising how that flexibility can be misused in today's polarised political environment.

The bench's central task was to settle a deepening conflict: can unelected constitutional functionaries appointed by the Union delay or obstruct legislation passed by democratically elected state governments? Article 200 permits a governor to assent to a Bill, return it with comments, or reserve it for the President. But opposition-led states argue that these powers have been routinely weaponised, with governors sitting on Bills for months or years, turning delay into a de facto pocket veto never intended by the framers.

Court in what was widely seen as an attempt to secure a reversal or dilution of the earlier ruling.