Introduction

In the ongoing Supreme Court hearings on the Presidential Reference regarding Governors’ timelines under Articles 200 and 201, several States have strongly opposed the Union government’s position. Karnataka, West Bengal, and Himachal Pradesh, represented by senior advocates, cautioned that granting wide discretion to Governors undermines the basic structure of the Constitution—notably federalism and the Cabinet system of parliamentary democracy.

State Arguments Against Centre

1. Karnataka: Safeguarding the Cabinet System

• Counsel: Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium

• Submission: The Cabinet system of collective responsibility to legislatures is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

• Concern: If Governors are allowed unchecked discretion, it dilutes the Cabinet’s authority and indirectly erodes democratic governance.

• Quote: Such a move would amount to “eroding the Cabinet responsibility that lies at the heart of parliamentary democracy.”

2. West Bengal: Preventing Governors from Stalling Democracy

• Counsel: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal

• Submission: Governors cannot act as barriers to the legislative process. Once a Bill is passed, the Governor cannot subject its competence to personal review—that role belongs to the judiciary.

• Warning: Indefinite delays in granting assent subvert democracy and the people’s mandate.

• Quote: “The will of the people cannot be subject to executive whims and fancy.”

3. Himachal Pradesh: Retaining Federalism, Rejecting Viceroyalty

• Counsel: Advocate Anand Sharma

• Submission: Governors (and the President) hold no legislative authority and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

• Remark: “States cannot be treated as municipalities,” Sharma warned, rejecting attempts to elevate Governors into quasi-Viceroys with overriding powers.

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act

• Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar.

• Concerns Raised:

  • Justice Narasimha questioned whether judicially-imposed timelines amounted to rewriting the Constitution.

  • At the same time, the Bench recognized the democratic danger of unchecked inaction:

    • “Governors cannot sit indefinitely…” one judge observed.

• Challenge: Determining whether a lapse of time should automatically deem assent, a scenario the Constitution’s framers did not expressly contemplate.

Conclusion

The hearings highlight a clash between Centre and States over constitutional balance. While the Union government defends gubernatorial discretion as a safeguard, States warn it could paralyze legislatures and erode democratic norms. The Court faces the delicate task of ensuring expeditious governance without trespassing into the domain of constitutional amendment.