Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 25 November 2025
Content Governor’s Discretion on Bills (Article 200) Polarisation, Neutrality & Civil Discourse Governor’s Discretion on Bills (Article 200) Why is it in News? President sought SC’s advice under Article 143 on 14 questions regarding the powers of Governors over Bills passed by State legislatures. Trigger: Conflict in Tamil Nadu—Governor delaying/withholding assent, prompting judicial intervention. SC has now answered 11 of 14 questions, reshaping the understanding of gubernatorial discretion & timelines under Article 200. Relevance GS-II: Polity & Governance Centre–State relations Federalism and constitutional friction Role, powers, limitations of Governor Article 200, 201, 163, 143 Judicial review of constitutional authorities Anti-defection, legislative process Sarkaria, Punchhi Commissions on Governors Issues in Union–State trust deficit Constitutional morality & democratic mandate GS-II: Separation of Powers Unelected head (Governor) vs elected Assembly Delays in assent → legislative paralysis Judicial intervention vs constitutional autonomy GS-II: Indian Constitution—Historical Evolution Departure from 1935 Act Constituent Assembly’s intent to avoid discretionary veto Post-1985 changes in political discipline Practice Questions “The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on Article 200 expands gubernatorial discretion contrary to constitutional intent.” Discuss.(250 Words) Constitutional Scheme Governor’s Role in State Legislation Under Article 200, when a Bill is presented, Governor can: Assent. Withhold assent. Return Bill (except Money Bills). Reserve for President. Foundational Principles Governor acts on aid & advice of Council of Ministers (Article 163). Discretion is exceptional, not the rule. Not an “employee” of Union (Hargovind Pant case). Constituent Assembly Intent Draft Article 175 originally gave explicit discretion → deleted. B.N. Rau’s constitutional note: Governor not meant to be an alternative power center. Evolution: Historical Background Government of India Act, 1935 Explicit discretionary power with Governor-General/Governor. Constitution deliberately moved away from this colonial design. Pre-1985 Reality Before Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule): Parties could split. Government’s “majority” could fluctuate. Returning Bills had a real legislative effect. Post-1985: Party whip discipline → SC implies this limits need for discretion. Contemporary Conflict: Why Governors Became Controversial Recurring Issues Delays in giving assent. Returning Bills after long gaps. Reserving Bills for President without justification. Alleged political misuse when Union–State relations are adversarial. Empirical Evidence Ramakrishna Hegde’s data (1991): 74 Bills pending with President. Some pending 6–7 years. Indicates systemic delay, not isolated incidents. Supreme Court Opinion (2024–25): Core Findings A. SC on Discretion Governor does have discretion in: Assenting. Withholding. Reserving for President. BUT this discretion is: Not unlimited. Subject to limited judicial review when delays are “prolonged, unexplained, indefinite”. B. No Strict Time Limit SC refuses to prescribe a fixed timeline. But emphasises: “As soon as possible” must have practical meaning. Court can intervene in egregious cases. C. Resubmitted Bills Once Assembly re-passes the Bill: Governor must give assent “as soon as possible”. Cannot withhold again. D. Withholding Assent SC clarifies: Withholding cannot be simpliciter. Must be accompanied with message (reasons). The Flaws/Concerns in SC’s Logic – Expert Critiques Coalition Scenario Overlooked SC assumes Council always backs its own Bill. Real-world contradiction: Coalition government changes. New government may not support old Bill. Returning the Bill may reflect genuine political change, not misuse. Aid and Advice Issues SC assumption: Ministers may give unconstitutional advice → Governor needs discretion. Critiques: Ministers take oath to uphold Constitution. For unconstitutional advice: Governor can report under Article 356 without their advice. President also does not have absolute discretion; bound by Cabinet. Broadening Discretion is Dangerous Sarkaria/Venkatachaliah/Punchhi Commissions: Discretion should be narrow, only in 2nd proviso of Article 200. SC now widens it and makes it non-justiciable. Risks: Parallel veto authority. Legislative paralysis. Structural Problem: Appointment System Soli Sorabjee (1985) Governor posts used as: “Consolation prizes”. “Parking spaces” for political aspirants. Commission Recommendations Ignored Sarkaria (1988) Venkatachaliah (2002) Punchhi (2010) Recommendations: Fixed criteria for appointment. Consultation with Chief Minister. Non-political backgrounds. None implemented → institutional conflict remains baked in. Key Constitutional Concerns A. Federalism Excessive discretion → weakens State autonomy. Creates vertical political leverage for Union. B. Separation of Powers Governor becomes a de facto legislative check without electoral accountability. C. Democratic Mandate People elect Assembly → Governor (appointed) stalls its will. Reform Pathways A. Constitutional Amendment (Article 200) Introduce: Clear timelines (e.g., 3 months). Procedure for assent, withholding, reservation. B. Reform Governor Appointments Merit-based criteria. Mandatory consultation with State. Fixed tenure protection. C. Make Discretion Justiciable Courts should be able to review: Reasons for withholding. Unreasonable reservation. Delays beyond prescribed limits. Conclusion SC’s advisory opinion broadens gubernatorial discretion and removes enforceable timelines, reversing the reform-oriented Tamil Nadu judgment. This risks reviving a quasi-colonial veto model, contrary to constitutional intent. Without timelines and accountability, federal friction will intensify. Structural reforms in Article 200 and the appointment process of Governors are necessary for stable Union–State relations. Polarisation, Neutrality & Civil Discourse Why is it in News? Justice N. Anand Venkatesh (Madras High Court) highlights the erosion of neutrality, collapse of civil dialogue, and rise of polarisation in public discourse. Warns that democracy, governance, and societal cohesion face existential risk if neutrality continues to be mocked and polarisation normalised. Relevance GS-II: Polity & Governance Democratic culture, quality of public discourse Institutional credibility: legislature, judiciary, executive Civil society and media behaviour Impact of polarisation on policy-making Threats to deliberative democracy (Habermas) GS-I: Society Social fragmentation Erosion of trust, rise of tribalism Mental health and community cohesion challenges Hate crimes and political violence GS-III: Internal Security Digital manipulation, misinformation Algorithmic polarisation and radicalisation Weakening of social resilience Practice Questions Discuss how polarisation undermines the functioning of democratic institutions in India. (250 Words ) What is Neutrality & Civil Discourse? Neutrality = impartial judgment, evaluating facts without partisan bias. Civil discourse = reasoned, respectful debate essential for democracy. In classical democratic theory (Habermas), open dialogue allows deliberation, problem-solving, and legitimacy of institutions. Contemporary Crisis: What Has Gone Wrong? A. Structural Shifts Public forums (TV, social media, political rallies) now prioritise conflict over content. Digital platforms monetise emotional outrage. Discussion becomes spectacle, not reasoning. B. Binary Thinking Left vs Right, nationalist vs liberal: no middle ground. Moderation viewed as weakness; neutrality attacked as betrayal. C. Tribes Over Truth Group loyalty replaces fact-based thinking. Confirmation bias and motivated reasoning dominate. Opponents treated as enemies, not citizens. Impact on Democratic Institutions A. Legislature Polarisation → deadlock, abrupt boycotts, rubber-stamp laws. Complex policy issues reduced to ideological binaries. B. Judiciary Courts accused of partisanship → weakened legitimacy. Judgments viewed through political lens, not legal reasoning. C. Executive Leadership Leaders become faction heads, not representatives of the entire polity. Compromise equated with weakness; negotiation space collapses. D. Public Sphere Debate replaced by hostile rhetoric, memes, and dog whistles. Civic trust steadily erodes. Societal and Individual Consequences A. Mental Health Rising stress, anxiety, and anger fatigue from political hostility. Decision-makers face emotional burnout. B. Social Integration Social networks shrink; people cluster with ideological mirrors. Cross-cutting ties weaken → communal cohesion suffers. C. Workplace Dynamics Ideological divisions influence hiring, collaboration, interpersonal conflict. D. Extremism & Violence Polarisation linked to: Rise in hate crimes. Political violence. Targeting of minority groups. Erosion of public safety norms. The Digital Dimension A. Algorithmic Manipulation Platforms amplify outrage; sensational posts get disproportionate reach. Echo chambers reinforce group identity. B. Homophily Effect (Evidence-Based Insight) Increased connectivity → people cluster with similar views. This widens opinion gaps, as per multiple social network studies. C. Misinformation Disinformation ecosystems exploit grievance, identity, fear. Creates alternate realities and deepens distrust. Misuse of Neutrality A. Selective Neutrality Condemn others’ faults; ignore own side’s misconduct. Neutrality becomes performative rather than principled. B. Hypocrisy and Erosion of Trust Public loses faith in fairness when neutrality is inconsistently applied. The Middle Path – Why It Matters Now A. Philosophical Foundations As taught by Buddhist ethics and political theorists: Middle path = balance, humility, openness. Rejects absolutism. B. Jay Garfield’s Warning Polarisation destroys civil discourse → democracy collapses. Urges dialogue with: Openness. Humility. Recognition of opponents’ humanity. Acceptance of uncertainty in one’s own beliefs. C. Why Middle Path Is Essential Encourages problem-solving, trust-building, and shared citizenship. Protects institutions from ideological capture. Rebuilding Dialogue: What Must Be Done A. Defend Neutrality Treat impartiality as a moral imperative, not passive stance. Institutional training for civil servants, judiciary, and media. B. Strengthen Civic Spaces Encourage fact-based discussions. Promote citizen forums, deliberative assemblies, and community dialogue. C. Digital Reforms Transparency in algorithms. Stronger misinformation checks. Civic literacy on online manipulation. D. Political Leadership Leaders must normalise compromise. Promote language of unity instead of mobilisation through fear. E. Societal Responsibility View opponents as citizens, not adversaries. Accept ambiguity in complex issues. Encourage pluralism and empathy. Conclusion The collapse of neutrality is not merely political but existential. Without respectful engagement, democratic institutions lose legitimacy, society becomes segregated, and public trust evaporates. Reclaiming neutrality, balance, and genuine dialogue is essential to defend governance, peace, and social cohesion. Middle path is not idealism—it’s the only sustainable model for modern democracies facing deep polarization.