Citing the very Supreme Court judgment that warned Governors against stalling legislation, Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has defended his decision to send the state’s Muslim quota bill to the President of India for a constitutional review.
In a statement that has reignited the debate over the role of Governors in India’s legislative process, Gehlot referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case. He said the judgment made it clear that governors cannot directly seek legal advice from the courts. This, he argued, left him with only one option: referring the bill to the President under Article 200 of the Constitution.
“There is no mechanism at the state level for the governor to refer bills to constitutional courts for their advice or opinion,” Gehlot noted. “Under the scheme of the Constitution, the only way for the governor to address doubts about the legality of a bill is to reserve it for the President, who may then seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143.”
The Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks to give a 4 per cent reservation to Muslims in government contracts worth less than Rs 2 crore. The state government, led by the Congress, argues the bill is meant to support socially and economically backward Muslims already classified under Category II(B) of the Backward Classes list in Karnataka.
Gehlot, however, expressed constitutional reservations. He pointed out that Category II(B) includes only Muslims and no other group, making the provision appear religion-specific. This, he said, could violate Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which bar the state from giving special treatment purely on the basis of religion.
Before forwarding the bill to the President on May 22, the Governor had returned it twice, seeking clarifications. The state government had hoped that the recent Supreme Court judgment that criticised inaction by Governors would pressure Raj Bhavan into giving assent.
But in an unexpected turn, Gehlot leaned on the same ruling to support his stand, creating a constitutional conundrum. While the apex court advised against delays, it also highlighted the governor’s limited tools for determining a bill’s legality.
This referral to the President under Article 200 opens the door for a possible advisory opinion from the Supreme Court under Article 143, a rare move in Indian constitutional practice.
With the bill now pending presidential consideration, the political and legal spotlight shifts to the Centre, and possibly to the Supreme Court, where the broader debate on the balance of power between elected governments and appointed governors is once again front and centre. (UNI)
