21 November 2025

• A five-judge Constitution Bench answered the 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143.
• Triggered by the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling that fixed a three-month time limit for Governors/President to act on State Bills.
• The Union Government sought clarity due to constitutional silence and increasing federal tensions, especially involving Tamil Nadu & Kerala Governors.
• The Court examined whether judiciary can:
  • Impose uniform timelines on Governors/President.
  • Assume “deemed assent” after expiry of such timelines.
  • Intervene in prolonged inaction.

Key Points

• Judiciary cannot impose a one-size-fits-all timeline on Governors/President for disposing of Bills.
• Courts cannot presume “deemed assent” if timelines lapse.
• However, Governors/President cannot sit indefinitely; prolonged, unexplained inaction violates constitutional propriety.
• Article 200: Governor has three options:
  • Grant assent
  • Reserve the Bill for President
  • Withhold assent & return Bill (except Money Bills)
• Governor must return the Bill with reasons if withholding; cannot stall silently.
• Courts can issue a “limited mandamus” directing decision within a reasonable period, but:
  • Cannot review merits of the decision.
  • Cannot summon or prosecute Governors (Article 361 immunity).
• Courts cannot examine merits of the Bill itself.

Static Linkages

• Article 143 – Advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• Article 200 – Governor’s assent to Bills; options and limitations.
• Article 201 – President’s powers regarding State Bills.
• Article 361 – Immunity of President/Governor.
• Basic Structure Doctrine – Separation of powers; federalism.
• Parliamentary System Principle – Ceremonial heads act on aid & advice except in limited discretion.
• Sarkaria Commission & Punchhi Commission – Recommended clearer procedures for Governor’s assent.
• Constitutional Morality – Duty of constitutional offices to avoid arbitrariness.
• Judicial Review – Review of procedural lapses, not merits of legislative policy.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Reinforces separation of powers.
  •   Prevents misuse of judicial timelines.
  • Curbs arbitrary inaction by Governors.
• Cons
  • No fixed timeline may allow political delay.
  • “Reasonable time” remains vague.
  • Limited judicial intervention may weaken State autonomy.
• Stakeholders
  • States: Want time-bound assent.
  • Union: Supports Governor discretion.
  • Judiciary: Balances intervention and restraint.

Way Forward

• Establish conventions on “reasonable time.”  Implement Punchhi Commission reforms.
• Mandate written reasons for withholding assent.
• Strengthen cooperative federalism and procedural clarity.

FOURTEEN QUESTIONS AND COURT’S RESPONSES

• Governor’s Options under Article 200
  • Assent to the Bill.
  • Withhold assent and return (non-Money Bills) with comments.
  • Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration.
• Is Governor Bound by Aid & Advice?
  • Not bound by Council of Ministers’ aid and advice under Article 200.
  • Enjoys constitutional discretion.
• Justiciability of Governor’s Decisions
  • Governor’s functions under Article 200 are not justiciable.
  • Exception: In cases of indefinite, unreasonable delay, courts may issue mandamus to decide within a reasonable time — but cannot direct outcome.
• Article 361 — Immunity
  •  Article 361 provides an absolute bar on judicial proceedings against the Governor.
  • But acts may be subject to limited judicial scrutiny when there is inaction.
• Can Courts Impose Timelines on Governors/President?
  • No. Constitution is silent; courts cannot prescribe timelines.
  • Only remedy: mandamus to “decide”, not dictate speed or result.
• Justiciability of President’s Assent (Article 201)
  • President’s exercise of power under Article 201 is not justiciable, same reasoning as Governor.
• Timelines for President under Article 201
  • No judicially imposed timelines possible.
• Is SC’s Advice Mandatory When Governor Reserves a Bill?
  • No. President’s subjective satisfaction is sufficient.
• Judicial Review Before Law Comes into Force
  • Governor/President’s decisions under Articles 200 & 201 are not justiciable before the Bill becomes law.
  • Courts cannot examine the content of a Bill before it becomes an Act.
• Can SC Substitute Governor’s/President’s Powers using Article 142?
  • No.
  • Article 142 cannot override or substitute constitutional roles.
  • No “deemed assent” can be created under Article 142.
• Is a State Law Effective Without Governor’s Assent?
  • No.
  • A Bill must receive assent under Article 200 to become law.
• Article 145(3) — Mandatory Reference to 5-Judge Bench?
  • Returned unanswered; irrelevant to the reference.
• Scope of Article 142 (Clarification)
  • Not definitively answered.
  • Court reiterated limits: cannot replace constitutional functions.
• Can SC Resolve Centre–State Disputes Only Under Article 131?
  • Returned unanswered; irrelevant to the functional reference.

INDIA’S FISHERIES, AQUACULTURE ON PROMISING PATH  

• World Fisheries Day 2025: FAO supports India’s theme — “India’s Blue Transformation: Strengthening Value Addition in Seafood Exports.”
• India is the 2nd-largest aquaculture producer with fast-growing fish production.
• FAO stresses sustainability, traceability, value addition, and climate resilience.

Key Points

• SOFIA 2024: Global aquaculture 130.9 MT, capture 92.3 MT; India: 10.23 MT.
• India’s output rose from 2.44 MT (1980s) to 17.54 MT (2022–23).
• Growth drivers:
  • PMMSY, Blue Revolution
  • ICAR institutes, MPEDA, NFDB
  • Coastal Aquaculture Authority regulation  Private sector investments across value chains
• FAO-supported initiatives:
  • BOBP (small-scale fisheries, safety, post- harvest)
  • BOBLME (EAFM, IUU control, endangered species)
  • GEF Andhra Pradesh Project for sustainable aquaculture
  • TCP port strengthening for Vanakbara & Jakhau
• Challenges: Overfishing, pollution, weak traceability, climate risks, small-scale fisher vulnerabilities.

Static Linkages

• India’s coastline: 7,516 km.
• Fisheries: State subject, but deep- sea & exports under Union.
• Fisheries boost allied sector GDP.  Linked to Blue Economy, SDG 14,
• MSY principles.
• Coastal communities recognized under FRA in some areas.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Supports 28 million livelihoods.
  • PMMSY improves modernisation, credit, safety.
  • Aquaculture boosts nutrition and rural incomes.
  • FAO brings global standards on sustainability.
• Concerns
  • Overfishing, ecosystem stress, bycatch.
  • Pollution + climate change affecting fish stocks.
  • Weak traceability → export rejections.
  • Small-scale fishers lack finance & cold chain access.
• Stakeholder Perspectives
  • Fishers: Demand safety, fair prices, infrastructure.
  • Government: Focus on exports, sustainability.
  • Environmentalists: Call for ecosystem-based limits.
  • Industry: Needs certification & quality assurance.

Way Forward

• Science-based quotas, gear regulation, seasonal bans.
• Co-managed MCS to curb IUU fishing.  Digital traceability (QR, blockchain).
• Climate-resilient aquaculture models.
• Modernised ports with hygiene & waste systems.
• Strengthened cold chain + targeted credit & insurance.

COURT SAFEGHUARDS CONSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE

• A Constitution Bench gave its opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference about whether courts can impose timelines on Governors/President regarding State Bills.
• The ruling comes amid growing disputes over delays in assent to Bills by Governors.
• Court clarified constitutional boundaries, rejected “deemed assent,” and reaffirmed federal balance.

Key Points

• Judiciary cannot prescribe fixed timelines for Governors/President for legislative assent.
• “Deemed assent” unconstitutional; Constitution does not allow automatic approval.
• Courts may act only against unexplained, indefinite delays causing constitutional paralysis.
• Governor’s three options (Art. 200): assent, return for reconsideration, reserve for President.
• President’s authority (Arts. 111 & 201) independent; courts cannot impose deadlines.
• President not bound to seek advisory opinion under Article 143 for each reserved Bill.
• Courts cannot create new procedures to fill constitutional silences.
• Substantive decisions of the President/Governor remain non-justiciable, except for mala fide delays.

Static Linkages

• Articles 111, 143, 200, 201—legislative process & assent.
• Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Constitutionalism.
• Federal structure with unitary tilt.
• Role of constitutional functionaries—President & Governor.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Protects constitutional design and avoids judicial overreach.
  • Preserves executive autonomy in assent decisions.
  • Strengthens federal balance and institutional boundaries.
• Cons
  • Absence of timelines may enable political misuse.
  • States face delays in policy implementation.
  • Transparency in assent decisions remains low.
• Stakeholders
  • States: want predictable timelines.
  • Union: supports Governor’s discretionary space.
  • Judiciary: avoids overstepping but ensures no constitutional paralysis.

Way Forward

• Create guiding conventions on reasonable timelines.
• Strengthen inter-governmental coordination and transparency.
• Require periodic reporting on pending Bills.
• Promote cooperative federalism through consultative mechanisms.

• Mexico’s recent protests reflect a wider global pattern of Gen Z–driven mobilisations against corruption, inequality, unemployment, and democratic decline.
• Similar youth uprisings have occurred in Nepal, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka.
• Movements are heavily influenced by social media, enabling shared slogans, strategies, and political vocabulary across borders.
• Yet, like the Arab Spring, many leaderless movements struggle to translate street energy into long-term reform.

Key Points

• Gen Z is asserting political agency worldwide through fast, decentralised mobilisation.
• Digital platforms create a transnational protest culture, accelerating idea diffusion.
• Weak organisational structures often lead to post-protest marginalisation of youth groups.
• Governments deploy surveillance, shutdowns, and misinformation to neutralise movements.
• Sri Lanka’s 2022 movement is a rare success where protest energy linked with civil society and institutions.

Static Linkages

• Civil society’s role in democracies (NCERT).
• Principles of constitutionalism, accountability, rule of law.
• Collective action and social movement theory.  Youth empowerment frameworks (National Youth Policy).
• Technology’s dual role—mobilisation and digital repression.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Rapid mobilisation, creative messaging, cross- border solidarity.
  • Pushes governments towards accountability and reform.
• Challenges
  • Lack of leadership → weak negotiation capacity.  Digital repression by states.
  • Institutional vacuum after regime collapse.  Risk of co-option or fragmentation.
• Stakeholders
  • Youth: demand transparency, jobs, democratic rights.
  • States: view protests as destabilising.  Civil society: crucial mediator.

Way Forward

• Create formal avenues for youth participation.
• Build leadership and organisational structures.  
• Strengthen digital rights and civic education.
• Encourage alliances with civil society and institutions.
• Address root issues—corruption, unemployment, political exclusion.

SC STEP BACK, RESTORE LEGAL BALANCE

Context of the News

• Supreme Court (SC) revisited its earlier ruling that prescribed time-lines for Governors/President to act on Bills.
• A Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai held that the judiciary cannot impose rigid deadlines or assume executive functions.
• The SC, however, allowed intervention in cases of “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite delays” in granting assent.
• The President earlier referred 14 questions to the SC seeking clarity after concerns over “obstructionist” roles of some Raj Bhavans.

Key Points

• Court rolls back the mandatory time-line earlier fixed for Governors/President.
• Reaffirms separation of powers as part of the basic structure.
• Judicial review is valid but cannot “meddle in legislative procedure.”
• Acknowledges misuse of assent power to stall Bills in Opposition-ruled States.
• Reiterates constitutional options under Article 200:
  • Assent,
  • Withhold,
  • Return for reconsideration,
  • Reserve for President.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Restores constitutional balance between executive and judiciary.
  • Prevents judicial overreach while retaining space to check abuse of delay.
  • Ensures democratic law-making is not arbitrarily blocked.
  • Strengthens cooperative federalism.
• Cons / Challenges
  • Persistent ambiguity on what qualifies as “prolonged and unexplained delay.”
  • Governors’ discretionary power remains susceptible to political misuse.
  • No statutory time-line leaves States without predictable timelines for law-making.
  • Possibility of future conflict requiring renewed judicial intervention.
• Stakeholder Perspectives
  • States: Want clear timelines to prevent obstruction.
  • Union Government: Prefers flexibility, avoids judicial encroachment.
  • Judiciary: Balancing constitutional morality and institutional boundaries.
  • Citizens: Desire for smooth governance and faster law-making.

Way Forward

•  Codify processes for assent in a model framework or through an All-India Judicial/Administrative guideline.
• Increase transparency: mandatory public reasons for delay/withholding.
• Create structured Centre–State consultation mechanisms on reserved Bills.
• Sensitise Governors on constitutional morality (as recommended by ARC).
• Strengthen conventions over legal coercion to maintain federal harmony.

MBS GETS DC WELCOME, WILL SEEK MORE

• Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) received a high-profile welcome at the White House, marking a strong revival of US– Saudi ties.
• Comes seven years after the Khashoggi murder fallout, when Biden had vowed to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah”.
• The U.S. designated Saudi Arabia as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) and approved the F-35 sale, overruling Israeli and internal objections.
• U.S. seeks Saudi entry into the Abraham Accords; Riyadh insists on Palestinian statehood first.

Key Points

• MNNA Status: Faster defence transfers, deeper military cooperation.
• F-35 Access: Breaks Israel’s exclusive regional hold over the platform.
• Geopolitical Calculus: U.S. counters China’s rising influence; Saudi seeks long-term security guarantees.
• Palestinian Question: Major hurdle to Saudi– Israel normalisation.
• Human Rights Lens: U.S. realpolitik despite Khashoggi episode.

Static Linkages

• U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (1961)—defines MNNA status.
• Energy security and India’s West Asia dependency (Economic Survey).
• Strait of Hormuz—global oil chokepoint (NCERT Geography).
• Balance of Power and realism in IR theory (standard texts).
• Abraham Accords (2020)—Middle East diplomatic restructuring.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Strengthens US–Saudi security partnership.  
  • Counters Chinese influence in the Gulf.
  • Opens path for broader West Asian stabilisation.
• Cons
  • Risks Israel’s QME in the region.
  • Human rights concerns sidelined.
  • Possible tech leak to China due to Saudi ties.  Iran may view moves as escalatory.

Way Forward

• Build safeguards to protect sensitive tech.
• Link normalisation with credible Palestinian progress.
• Encourage inclusive West Asia dialogue.
• Integrate rights accountability into defence cooperation.
• Diversify global energy dependencies.