Constitutional clarity: On hearings on the Presidential Reference

The Hindu editorial on 17 September 2025 highlights that the Supreme Court hearings on the Presidential Reference have reaffirmed the April 2025 judgment clarifying Governors’ powers in assenting to State Bills. The Court made clear that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent, as such inaction paralyses legislatures and undermines democracy. While the Solicitor-General argued Governors act as a check on hasty laws, the Bench stressed they cannot override legislative wisdom. The selective delays faced mainly by Opposition-ruled States point to misuse rather than constitutional ambiguity. The hearings also exposed inconsistencies in defending Governors’ unchecked discretion under Article 200 while allowing judicial review under Article 356. Importantly, the editorial questions why the Centre sought an advisory opinion through Article 143 instead of using regular judicial remedies, since advisory opinions cannot override binding judgments. Ultimately, the Court’s stance reinforces constitutional boundaries that protect federal balance and State autonomy, which the Centre must now accept.