[Answered] Examine the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on the Governor’s role against the Constituent Assembly’s vision of an ‘ornamental’ office. Evaluate if elevating this office to ‘Olympian heights’ disrupts the federal balance and the democratic mandate.

Introduction

India’s federal design envisaged Governors as nominal heads, yet recurring Centre–State conflicts and recent judicial interpretations have reopened debates on gubernatorial discretion, accountability, and democratic legitimacy within the constitutional framework.

Constituent Assembly’s Vision: ‘Ornamental’ Governor

1. Intent of the Framers: B R Ambedkar asserted Governors would have no independent discretion, acting solely on ministerial advice.
2. Rationale for Nomination: Limited powers made election unnecessary; the office was designed as ceremonial, not political.
3. Westminster Model Logic: Borrowed from British constitutionalism, emphasising executive accountability to elected legislatures.

Constitutional Position of the Governor

1. Article 200 – Assent to Bills: Governor may assent, withhold, or reserve bills, but the Constitution is silent on timelines.
2. Article 143 – Advisory Jurisdiction: Enables the President to seek non-binding opinions from the Supreme Court.
3. Aid and Advice Principle: Reinforced by multiple judgments that discretionary powers are exceptional, not routine.

Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinion: Key Features

1. No Mandatory Timelines: Court held it cannot prescribe rigid deadlines for Governors or the President.
2. ‘Limited Mandamus’ Doctrine: Judicial intervention only in “prolonged, unexplained, indefinite” inaction.
3. Ambiguity in Standards: No definition of what constitutes “reasonable time”, leaving scope for arbitrariness.

Departure from Constituent Assembly Intent

1. From Nominal to Assertive Role: Advisory opinion implicitly legitimises prolonged gubernatorial inaction.
2. Ignoring Constituent Debates: Framers’ explicit rejection of discretionary authority finds little reflection.
3. Comparative Constitutional Practice: Unlike the UK monarch, Indian Governors now exercise substantive veto-like influence.

Federal Balance: Structural Implications

1. Centre–State Asymmetry: Governors often act in alignment with the Union executive, skewing cooperative federalism.
2. Opposition-Ruled States Impacted: Examples include Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, where bills remained pending for years.
3. Commissions’ Warnings Ignored: Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission cautioned against politicisation of gubernatorial office.

Democratic Mandate and Accountability

1. Unelected Authority vs Elected Legislature: Allowing Governors to stall laws undermines popular sovereignty.
2. Legislative Supremacy Diluted: State Assemblies’ law-making power becomes contingent on executive discretion.
3. Judicial Minimalism Questioned: Excessive deference risks normalising constitutional obstruction.

Case Studies and Judicial Trends

1. Tamil Nadu Bills Case (2024): Earlier two-judge bench imposed a three-month norm to prevent paralysis.
2. Nabam Rebia Judgment (2016): Reaffirmed limited discretion of Governors, especially in legislative matters.
3. International Comparison: Federal systems like Canada restrict gubernatorial equivalents to ceremonial roles.

Way Forward

1. Codifying Timelines: Parliament may legislate clear limits under Article 200.
2. Revisiting Governor’s Role: Appointment process and accountability mechanisms need reform.
3. Judicial Clarification: Future benches must harmonise constitutional text with framers’ intent.

Conclusion

As Granville Austin noted in The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, federal stability depends on restraint; empowering unelected offices risks eroding democratic legitimacy and the delicate constitutional balance.