The Supreme Court’s recent advisory opinion—issued in response to a Presidential reference triggered by a politically sensitive judgment delivered in April 2025—has reshaped national debate on the constitutional position of the Governor, the boundaries of his discretionary powers, and the continued relevance of aid and advice from the elected Council of Ministers. The opinion, though not binding, is constitutionally authoritative and is expected to significantly influence the behaviour of Governors, State governments, and even future judicial interpretation.

To understand what the Supreme Court meant, and what the opinion implies for Indian federalism, it is essential to break down (a) what questions the Presidential reference raised, (b) what the Supreme Court clarified, and (c) how the opinion affects the delicate balance between constitutional offices.

The Context Behind the Presidential Reference

The Presidential reference under Article 143 was triggered after a controversial but influential April 2025 Supreme Court judgment involving the constitutional actions of a Governor in a State facing political instability. The judgment was criticised by constitutional experts for creating possible ambiguity regarding how much discretion a Governor may exercise—and whether a Governor could act contrary to the advice of elected Ministers in certain “exceptional” circumstances.

This ambiguity raised fears that Governors across States could interpret the ruling as an expansion of their discretionary authority. Several State governments even accused Governors of taking decisions that impeded the functioning of elected administrations.

To address the uncertainty and prevent constitutional misuse, the President of India sought the Court’s authoritative clarification, asking pointed questions about the scope and limits of a Governor’s discretion.

Questions Raised in the Presidential Reference

The reference asked the Supreme Court to clarify multiple constitutional issues arising from the April 2025 judgment. These questions revolved around:

1. Whether a Governor can refuse to act on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers

This is the most fundamental constitutional question, striking at the relationship between the ceremonial head of State and the elected executive.

2. Whether a Governor can delay or withhold Bills passed by the legislature

Many States had complained about Governors sitting on Bills for months, creating legislative paralysis.

3. Whether a Governor can independently decide the timing of a floor test

The April 2025 judgment suggested that a Governor might have discretion to call for a floor test even without clear evidence of loss of majority—raising fears of political manipulation.

4. Whether the Governor has an unfettered right to seek information from the Chief Minister

The constitutional question was whether this right could become a tool to interfere in day-to-day governance.

5. Whether “discretionary power” under Article 163 is limited, and if so, how

The reference sought clarity on when exactly the Governor acts in his discretion and when he is constitutionally bound by ministerial advice.

These questions collectively touched upon nearly every aspect of Governor-executive relations.

What the Supreme Court Said: Key Points of the Advisory Opinion

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion delivered several important clarifications aimed at restoring constitutional balance. The key points include:

1. Governors Must, As a Rule, Act on Aid and Advice

The Court emphasised that the Governor is not an alternate power centre but a constitutional figurehead expected to operate within the democratic mandate of the elected government.

The Court reaffirmed that the Governor shall normally have no discretion except in rare, constitutionally recognised situations.

It stressed that the 1950s and 1960s judicial standards, which strongly restricted discretion, still hold good.

2. Discretion is Not Equivalent to Personal Judgment

The Court clarified that constitutional discretion is not personal discretion.
It applies only in situations explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as:

• Appointment of a Chief Minister when no party has a clear majority

• Calling for a floor test when reliable, objective material indicates possible loss of majority

• Sending a report under Article 356

• Decisions on reserving Bills for Presidential consideration

Outside these exceptional cases, the Governor cannot choose whether or not to follow advice.

3. Governors Cannot Delay Bills Indefinitely

The Court clarified that sitting on Bills for extended periods violates the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
It observed that:

• Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe.

• Indefinite inaction is unconstitutional.

• The Governor’s power to reserve Bills must not be used as a tool for political pressure.

This point directly addresses disputes in several States where Governors were accused of paralysing the legislative process.

4. Governor Cannot Order a Floor Test Without Cogent Material

The Court strongly discouraged politically motivated floor-test orders.

A Governor must have verifiable evidence—such as withdrawal of support by allies—before ordering a trust vote. Mere political rumours or complaints by opposition parties are not sufficient.

5. Right to Seek Information Does Not Mean Supervisory Authority

The Court explained that Article 167(b), which allows the Governor to call for information from the Chief Minister, must be used sparingly and not in a way that disrupts routine governance or burdens the administration.

It reiterated that the Governor cannot act as an overseer or super-executive, nor interfere in policy decisions.

6. Constitutional Morality Must Guide Governor’s Conduct

In one of its strongest observations, the Court highlighted the importance of constitutional morality and political neutrality.

Governors must:

• respect the electoral mandate

• avoid partisanship

• prevent constitutional instability

• uphold cooperative federalism

The Court noted that misuse of the office erodes public trust and harms democratic institutions.

Did the Court Overrule the April 2025 Judgment?

No.
The advisory opinion did not explicitly overrule the April 2025 judgment but limited its scope, clarifying that:

• Any suggestion of expanded Governor discretion should not be misinterpreted.

• The earlier judgment cannot be used to justify political intervention.

• Constitutional checks remain intact.

The Court essentially restored the traditional understanding of the Governor’s role, re-emphasising that discretion exists only when absolutely necessary.

How the Opinion Reinforces Federal Principles

The Supreme Court’s opinion is significant because it strengthens India’s federal structure. It protects elected State governments from:

• administrative obstruction

• legislative delays

• politically motivated decisions

• misuse of office by non-elected constitutional appointees

By making it clear that the Governor cannot overstep constitutional boundaries, the Court has assured States that their democratic mandate remains supreme.

Should Governors Act Solely on Aid and Advice? The Court’s Direct Answer

Yes—except in the narrowest and clearest of circumstances.

The Court reaffirmed that the Constitution does not create a dual executive at the State level.
The real executive authority rests with the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister.

The Governor’s role is therefore:

• ceremonial,

• supervisory only in rare constitutional crises, and

• guided by the principles of neutrality and non-interference.

The Court explicitly warned that any attempt by a Governor to substitute his judgment for that of the elected government would violate the democratic framework.

Why This Opinion Matters for the Future

The advisory opinion may have far-reaching consequences. Here’s why:

1. It reduces conflict between Governors and State governments

By setting clear boundaries, the Court has reduced future points of friction.

2. It prevents constitutional misuse during political crises

The opinion limits the possibility of Governors facilitating unconstitutional changes in government.

3. It strengthens parliamentary democracy

By reaffirming ministerial supremacy, the Court has safeguarded electoral legitimacy.

4. It will guide future judicial interpretation

High Courts and benches of the Supreme Court will rely on this opinion when analysing disputes involving Governors.

5. It reinforces cooperative federalism

The Court’s observations promote healthier Centre-State relations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion makes it clear that the Governor is not an independent political actor, nor a rival power centre to the elected executive. By clarifying the questions raised through the Presidential reference—especially those surrounding the controversial April 2025 judgment—the Court has reaffirmed long-standing constitutional principles that safeguard democratic governance in India.

The opinion reiterates that the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers remain binding, except in a few defined constitutional situations. Governors, therefore, must operate within narrow discretionary boundaries, respect the mandate of the people, and uphold constitutional morality at all times.

In doing so, the Supreme Court has reinforced the central idea of Indian democracy: that real power lies with elected representatives, and constitutional offices must function within carefully defined limits that preserve democratic stability and federal balance.

Join our Telegram Channel for Latest News and Regular Updates.

Start your Mutual Fund Journey  by Opening Free Account in Asset Plus.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.