DAW 4th February 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

DAW 4th February 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

Question

“The Governor’s actions must conform to constitutional morality, not political expediency.” Analyze this statement in light of Supreme Court judgments on the role of Governors. (150 Words, 10 Marks).

Model Answer

Approach: Introduction:

  • Begin by framing the conflict between constitutional morality and political expediency in the Governor’s office, recalling B. R. Ambedkar’s vision and linking it to the recent intervention of the Supreme Court of India.

Body:

  • Briefly state the constitutional limits on the Governor (Articles 163 and 200).

  • Identify how political expediency operated in practice (pocket veto and post-repass reservation of Bills).

  • Analyse how recent judgments especially State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Article 143 opinion) restored constitutional morality by enforcing timeliness, procedure and accountability.

  • Show why these rulings protect federal balance, democratic mandate and legislative supremacy.

Conclusion:

  • Conclude that the Court has transformed gubernatorial discretion from political convenience into a constitutional duty, reaffirming the Governor as a neutral constitutional trustee.

Introduction:

  • The office of the Governor has often been caught between the spirit of the Constitution and the silence of its text. While B. R. Ambedkar envisaged the Governor as a constitutional sentinel and a neutral link in the federal chain, political practice has frequently reduced the office to an “agent of the Centre”. The real issue is that the Governor’s discretion is a constitutional trust, and not a personal privilege. Recent interventions by the Supreme Court of India clearly establish that constitutional morality must prevail over political expediency.

Body: Issues related to Office of Governor: Constitutional setting: limited and structured discretion:

  • Contrary to political practice, the Constitution does not envisage the Governor as a parallel executive or a political veto-holder. The constitutional role is clearly limited.

  • Article 163 – Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in narrowly defined discretionary areas.

  • Article 200 – Only three constitutional options on a State Bill:  assent, return for reconsideration, or reservation for the President.

  • The overall scheme reinforces that the Governor is not an alternative centre of executive power.

Political Expediency: The Tools of Obstruction

  • Difficulties arise when Governors use textual gaps to delay or dilute the mandate of the elected legislature. The recent Centre–State friction largely arose due to two practices:

  • “Pocket veto” – delay as a device: In States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Punjab, the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 was used to keep Bills pending for long periods, leading to administrative and legislative paralysis.

  • Misuse of reservation power: Even after Bills were reconsidered and re-passed by the Assembly, they were reserved for the President, thereby transferring effective decision-making to the Union and weakening State legislative autonomy.

The Judicial Counter-Strike: Restoring Accountability-

  • The Supreme Court has addressed these practices through a consistent emphasis on constitutional discipline and accountability.

  • Reasonable dispatch in giving assent:

  • In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Court held that inaction is not a constitutional option.

  • The expression “as soon as possible” signifies constitutional urgency.

  • Prolonged and unexplained delay was held to be justiciable and unconstitutional, effectively ending the practice of a pocket veto.

  • Procedure after reconsideration of Bills:

  • The Court clarified that once a Bill is returned, reconsidered and re-passed without material change, the Governor has no remaining discretion and must grant assent.

  • Reserving such a Bill for the President was held to be erroneous in law, thereby preventing the Governor from acting as a super-legislative authority.

  • Accountability of constitutional office:

  • In the Presidential Reference under Article 143 (November 2025), the Constitution Bench clarified that:

  • the Governor has only three constitutional choices – assent, return or reserve;

  • there is no fourth option of withholding assent simpliciter;

  • even under Article 201, prolonged delay is impermissible; and

  • although rigid timelines were avoided, unreasonable delay violates constitutional morality.

Why Constitutional Morality Must Prevail?

  • Federal balance – Political obstruction enables the Union to indirectly veto State legislation, weakening the federal structure.

  • Democratic mandate – As observed in State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary (2023), real authority lies with elected representatives, not nominated functionaries.

  • Institutional trust – Article 361 protects the office, but not mala fide or unconstitutional conduct.

The Path Ahead: Institutionalizing Neutrality:

  • Codification of timelines – The recommendation of the Punchhi Commission to prescribe a clear time-limit for action on Bills should be implemented to give operational meaning to “reasonable time”.

  • Appointment reform – The consultative approach suggested by the Sarkaria Commission, particularly consultation with the Chief Minister, remains vital to reduce the perception of Governors as political nominees.

Conclusion:

  • The judicial journey from Shamsher Singh (1974) to the Tamil Nadu verdict of 2025 reflects a clear shift from political discretion to constitutional duty. By curbing arbitrary delay and preventing the misuse of reservation powers, the Court has reaffirmed that the Governor functions as a constitutional facilitator of federalism, and not as a parallel power centre within India’s democratic framework.