In a significant constitutional clarification, the Supreme Court of India has carefully delineated its role in disputes between state governments and Governors, positioning itself as a facilitator of dialogue rather than an adversarial adjudicator. The apex court's opinion, delivered in its advisory jurisdiction, establishes clear boundaries for judicial intervention while preserving constitutional balance.
Limited Judicial Intervention in Governor's Functions
The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that the discharge of a Governor's function under Article 200 of the Constitution is generally not justiciable. This means courts cannot typically review the merits of decisions taken by Governors regarding bills passed by state legislatures. However, the court has carved out an important exception for what it terms "glaring circumstances."
According to the court's opinion submitted to the President, judicial intervention becomes permissible only in cases of "prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction" by Governors. Even in such scenarios, the court's power remains limited to issuing a mandamus directing the Governor to discharge constitutional functions within a reasonable timeframe, without commenting on the merits of the decision.
SC as Constitutional Mediator, Not Adjudicator
The Supreme Court has effectively redefined its role in the politically sensitive matter of Governor-state relations. Rather than acting as a conventional court that decides winners and losers in constitutional battles, the apex court sees itself as initiating what it calls a "dialogic process" between states and the central government.
This approach characterizes the court's function as "advisory, persuasive, deliberative, mediative, and consultative" rather than purely adjudicatory. By preserving the right of states to approach the court against gubernatorial delays, while simultaneously limiting the scope of judicial intervention, the Supreme Court seeks to strike a delicate balance in the separation of powers.
Constitutional Clockwork Requires All Cogs to Function
The court's opinion contains a powerful metaphor comparing constitutional authorities to the interconnected cogs of a clock. "The working of our constitutional scheme is premised on constitutional authorities performing their duties, akin to cogs that keep a clock ticking," the opinion states, emphasizing that these authorities depend on each other to keep the Constitution functioning.
While acknowledging that deliberate inaction can defeat the constitutional scheme, the court firmly states that constitutional courts cannot supplant the wisdom and considerations of Governors and the President. The opinion specifically rules out the possibility of courts granting "deemed assent" to bills, describing such action as a takeover of executive functions that violates the spirit of the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's advisory opinion, delivered on November 21, 2025, represents a significant evolution from its April ruling by a two-judge bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala. While the earlier judgment had proposed strict timelines and consequences for non-compliance, the current opinion offers a more nuanced approach focused on facilitating dialogue between constitutional authorities.
