Governor Powers Under Article 200 and Judicial Review

The Supreme Court has recently reviewed the powers of discretion of governors in Article 200 with concerns concerning delays in giving assent to state bills. The problem has brought back the discussion on the proportion of powers between the center, states, and judiciary.

Governor's Role Under Article 200

Article 200 empowers a governor to:

• Veto or approve a State Legislature Bill.
• Send back a bill to be reconsidered.
• Reserve it for the president's consideration.

The Court made it clear that governors cannot impose an absolute veto or pocket veto without any ends. Making decisions should be as prompt as possible and in accordance with the assistance and counsel of the State Cabinet, unless in exceptional situations of judicial independence. They can become subject to judicial examination.

Judicial Review and Article 200

Historically, discretion in Article 200 was regarded to be expansive by governors. Nevertheless, the Court raised the question of why the judicial review applies to Article 356 (President's rule) and not to Article 200 actions. It was also held that unfair delays or a lack of action by governors are also subject to review; stalling of legislatures is not done willfully.

Link with Article 356

The President is authorized under Article 356 to impose Central rule in a State in case of a breakdown of governance, usually on the recommendation of the Governor. To check such proclamations, the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai (1994) permitted judicial review of such proclamations. Equally, the existing controversy underscores the necessity to question the actions of the governor in the context of Article 200.

Misuse and Safeguards

Articles 200 and 356 have been misused in the past, particularly against states controlled by the opposition. Commissions such as the Sarkaria and Punchhi suggested the safeguards to be

• Prior warnings to states.
• Less use of President’s Rule.
• Accountability for governors' actions.

Significance for Federalism

The progressive position of the Court enhances Indian federalism by restraining arbitrary authorities. It protects the autonomy of state legislatures, promotes a timely law-making process, and prevents governors from being a political impediment.

Conclusion

The review of Article 200 powers will be a move towards democracy, accountability, and cooperative federalism. There is a need to have clear constitutional boundaries and timely rulings by governors in order to preserve the spirit of India's parliamentary democracy.