Presidential Opinion vs the Federal Structure
The Hindu
Key Arguments Presented
A. India’s federalism is cooperative, not hierarchical
- The Constitution envisions a Union of States with clear distribution of powers.
- Article 200 gives Governors limited discretion regarding assent to State Bills.
- Presidential powers under Articles 200 and 201 are not supervisory powers over the States.
B. The President must act only on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers
- The President expressing an “opinion” outside a formal assent/refusal is constitutionally irrelevant.
- Giving weight to such opinions elevates the President above elected State governments.
C. Governor’s delay or inaction violates federalism
- Withholding assent for years undermines democratic governance.
- Judiciary has held that Governors must act within reasonable timelines.
D. Presidential comments are being misinterpreted
- The article highlights a recent Presidential reference being used politically as if it were a directive.
- This disrupts the constitutional balance between Centre and States.
E. Danger of central overreach
- Centre indirectly controls States through:
- reserved Bills
- selective assent
- discretionary interpretation of Article 200
- misuse of Governor’s office
- Allowing “Presidential opinion” to override elected State governments threatens democratic representation.
3. Author’s Stance
The author, a legal expert and former Advisor to Parliament committees, takes a pro-federalism, pro-state autonomy stance.
He argues strongly that:
- The Constitution does not provide for Presidential micro-management of State legislation.
- States cannot be reduced to administrative units of the Union.
- Constitutional morality demands restraint from the Centre and Governors.
His tone is cautionary and rights-centred, emphasizing democratic accountability and constitutional balance.
4. Possible Biases or Limitations
A. Emphasis on State rights over Union concerns
The article may underplay scenarios where Centre’s involvement is necessary—e.g., national security, corruption, or violations of constitutional rights.
B. Absence of comparative examples
Other federal systems (like Canada or Australia) allow strong federal review of subnational laws—but the article doesn’t discuss such parallels.
C. Governor misuse is highlighted without discussing reforms
There is critique but no substantial proposal for institution-level reforms.
5. Pros and Cons of the Argument
Pros
1. Protects federal balance
Ensures Centre cannot dominate States arbitrarily.
2. Strengthens democracy
Elected State Assemblies’ decisions shouldn’t be nullified through procedural delays.
3. Aligns with Supreme Court jurisprudence
SC repeatedly criticised:
- Governor’s delays
- misuse of Article 356
- Centre’s overreach in state matters.
4. Ensures constitutional clarity
Presidential powers are formal, not advisory or political.
Cons
1. Underestimates legitimate Union concerns
When State laws contradict national policy, the Centre may need scrutiny.
2. Risks inconsistent governance
If States pass laws contrary to national commitments (e.g., trade, environment), the Centre needs a mechanism for correction.
3. Historical context missing
The founding debates about strong Centre vs strong States are not discussed.
4. No mention of cooperative mechanisms
Bodies like Inter-State Council could mediate disputes but are underutilized.
6. Policy Implications (UPSC GS Papers)
GS-2: Federalism
- The article directly relates to Centre-State relations and constitutional balance.
- Highlights the misuse of Articles 200–201 and the Governor’s discretionary powers.
GS-2: Separation of Powers
- Illustrates tensions between Executive (Governor/President) and Legislature (State Assemblies).
GS-2: Constitutional Morality
- Emphasizes that constitutional offices must function with restraint, neutrality, and adherence to democratic norms.
GS-2: Role of Governor
- Relevant to debates on political appointments, misuse of office, and need for reform (e.g., Sarkaria, Punchhi Commission).
GS-2: Federalism as Basic Structure
- Reinforces the Supreme Court’s position that federalism is part of the Basic Structure (Kesavananda Bharati, S.R. Bommai).
7. Real-World Impact
Positive Implications of the Article’s View
- Encourages fairer and more predictable Centre-State relations.
- Reduces political misuse of the Governor’s post.
- Strengthens the legitimacy of State policies and democratic processes.
Negative Implications
- Ignoring Presidential/Union concerns may lead to:
- policy fragmentation
- inconsistent national standards
- weakened national security mechanisms
- friction in Centre-State coordination
8. Balanced Summary
The article critiques the recent trend of treating Presidential remarks as binding directions, arguing this undermines India’s federal structure. It asserts that the President must act only on ministerial advice, and Governor’s powers over State Bills are limited and time-bound. Allowing the Centre to hold State legislation in limbo distorts federalism and disrespects democratic mandates.
While the author rightly warns about central overreach, the piece underplays the complexities of national governance where harmonization across States may sometimes be essential. Yet, overall, the article is a strong reminder that constitutional posts cannot become instruments of political dominance.
9. Future Perspectives
- Clear timelines for Governors to grant or withhold assent.
- Amend Article 200 to prevent indefinite delays.
- Strengthen Inter-State Council to mediate disputes.
- Implement Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations on Governor appointments.
- Codify federal conventions similar to other democracies.
- Promote cooperative federalism, not coercive federalism.
- Judicial guidelines to clarify the permissible scope of Presidential observations.
India’s constitutional future depends on ensuring that the delicate balance of federalism—neither too weak nor too rigid—is preserved through institutional restraint and democratic accountability.
