Supreme Court Clarifies Constitutional Powers of Governor and President Under Articles 200 and 201

On 20 November, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling clarifying the constitutional functions of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. The judgment addressed multiple questions referred by the President concerning delays in granting assent to state legislation and the extent of judicial oversight in such matters.

This decision is critical for understanding the federal framework, the balance of powers, and the constitutional mechanisms governing state legislation.

---

Powers of the Governor Under Article 200

Constitutional Options Before a Governor

When a Bill is presented to the Governor under Article 200, the Governor has three constitutional options:

1. Grant assent to the Bill.

2. Withhold assent and return the Bill (with recommendations) to the Legislature.

3. Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.

The power to return a Bill with comments does not apply to Money Bills.

---

Whether Governor Is Bound by Council of Ministers' Advice

The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor, when choosing between the three options available in Article 200, exercises constitutional discretion. Therefore, the Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers for this limited function.

This interpretation flows from:

• Article 163(2), which allows discretionary powers where the Constitution expressly provides.

• Judicial precedent such as Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), holding that exceptions exist where the Constitution contemplates discretion.

---

Justiciability of Governor’s Discretion Under Article 200

The Court held that:

• The Governor’s decision under Article 200 is not justiciable, meaning courts cannot review the merits of the Governor’s choice.

• However, prolonged, unexplained, or indefinite inaction can invite judicial intervention.

• In such rare circumstances, the Court may issue a limited mandamus directing the Governor to act within a reasonable time, without interfering with the substance of the discretion.

This principle is consistent with earlier judgments such as:

• A.G. Perarivalan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022), on limited judicial direction in cases of executive inaction.

---

Effect of Article 361: Immunity of Governors

The Court reaffirmed that:

• Article 361 provides absolute immunity to Governors from being personally subjected to judicial proceedings.

• However, this immunity does not bar courts from examining constitutional inaction or issuing directions to ensure the Constitution is followed.

Thus, while personal liability is barred, constitutional accountability is not eliminated.

---

Judicial Timelines Cannot Be Imposed on Governors

The Supreme Court held that:

• In the absence of constitutionally prescribed timelines in Article 200, courts cannot impose judicial deadlines.

• Creating such timelines would amount to rewriting the Constitution.

This respects the separation of powers and preserves the constitutional scheme.

---

Powers of the President Under Article 201

Justiciability of President’s Assent

• The President exercises discretion under Article 201, and this discretion is not justiciable.

• Courts cannot review the merits of the President’s decision.

• Judicial deadlines or modes of exercise of power cannot be prescribed for the President either.

---

Whether the President Must Seek Court Opinion Under Article 143

The Supreme Court clarified that the President is not required to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved by the Governor.

Such a requirement would:

• Burden the advisory jurisdiction

• Disrupt the legislative process

• Distort the constitutional design

Thus, Article 143 remains discretionary.

---

Judicial Review Before a Bill Becomes Law

The Court held:

• Decisions of the Governor or President under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable before the law comes into force.

• Courts cannot examine the contents of a Bill or intervene in the legislative process until it becomes enacted law.

This is consistent with:

• State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977), limiting judicial intervention during legislative processes.

---

Article 142 Cannot Be Used to Substitute Constitutional Functions

The Court reaffirmed that:

• Article 142 cannot be stretched to create “deemed assent” or substitute constitutional duties of the Governor or President.

• The extraordinary powers under Article 142 cannot override express constitutional provisions.

---

A State Law Cannot Come Into Force Without Governor’s Assent

The Court clarified that:

• There is no concept of a State law becoming enforceable without the Governor’s assent under Article 200.

• Assent is a mandatory constitutional requirement.

---

Questions Declined by the Court

The Court declined to answer questions related to:

• Composition of benches under Article 145(3)

• Broad scope of Article 142

• Jurisdiction under Article 131

These were deemed irrelevant to resolving the nature of reference before the Court.

---

Relevant Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 200 – Governor’s powers regarding assent to Bills

• Article 201 – President’s powers when Bills are reserved for consideration

• Article 163 – Council of Ministers and discretionary powers

• Article 361 – Immunity of Governors and President

• Article 142 – Powers of Supreme Court to pass orders for complete justice

• Article 143 – Advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

• Article 145(3) – Constitution Bench for substantial questions of law

• Article 131 – Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Union-State disputes

---

Key Judicial Precedents Cited or Relevant

• Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) – Executive power and discretion

• Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) – Governor’s discretion limited to areas where Constitution permits

• State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) – Limits on judicial review in legislative process

• A.G. Perarivalan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) – Judicial intervention in executive inaction

• Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of UP – Mandatory assent for laws

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies the delicate balance between:

• Constitutional discretion

• Legislative processes

• Federal structure

• Judicial oversight

By holding that the Governor and President cannot be bound by judicial timelines, the Court reinforces constitutional boundaries while preserving limited judicial intervention to curb inaction. The decision strengthens institutional clarity and maintains the integrity of the constitutional scheme governing state legislation.

---