What to Read in Indian Express Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

 

Editorial 1 : Governor’s Role in Granting Assent to Bills

Context

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion delivered under Article 143 on the Governor’s role in granting assent to State Bills has brought renewed focus on constitutional silence, discretionary powers, federal balance, and democratic accountability, especially amid recurring instances of prolonged gubernatorial delays in Opposition-ruled States.

Introduction

Recently, the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court addresses a long-standing constitutional concern regarding the Governor’s authority under Article 200. While the Court held that it cannot prescribe fixed timelines for Governors to act on Bills passed by State legislatures, the opinion has triggered debate on whether such restraint inadvertently legitimises executive inaction, weakens legislative supremacy, and departs from the constitutional vision of a parliamentary democracy.

Background to the Dispute

• Pattern of Delayed Assent
• Governors in multiple States have delayed assent to Bills for extended and undefined periods.
• Such delays are perceived to be politically selective, largely affecting Opposition-ruled States, thereby raising concerns of Centre-State friction.
• Tamil Nadu Episode
  • Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to several Bills for nearly three years.
  • The State government challenged this in the Supreme Court, citing violation of democratic norms and constitutional morality.
• April 2025 Supreme Court Judgment
  • A two-judge Bench ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold Bills.
  • It suggested a reasonable timeframe (generally three months)and introduced the principle of deemed assent in cases of inaction.
• Presidential Reference
  • The Union government invoked Article 143, seeking clarity on whether courts could mandate timelines for constitutional authorities like Governors and the President.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

• No Fixed Judicial Timelines
  • The Court held that prescribing mandatory timelines would amount to judicial overreach into constitutional functions.
• Constitutional Options Under Article 200
  • Grant assent to the Bill.
  • Withhold assent and return the Bill to the legislature (except Money Bills).
  • Reserve the Bill for consideration of the President.
• Scope for Limited Judicial Intervention
  • In cases of “prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction”, courts may issue a limited mandamusdirecting the Governor to act.
  • Courts cannot examine the merits or wisdomof the Governor’s decision.
  • The opinion remains advisory and non-bindingin nature.

Issues and Concerns Raised

1. Ambiguity Surrounding ‘Reasonable Time’

• The opinion fails to:
  • Define objective parameters for “prolonged” or “indefinite” delay.
  • Specify any outer time limit for gubernatorial action.
  • As a result:
    • Bills have remained pending for nine years in West Bengal.
    • Delays of three years in Tamil Naduwere judicially contested.
  • This ambiguity perpetuates constitutional uncertainty and repeated litigation.

2. Departure from Constituent Assembly Intent

• Dr B.R. Ambedkar, during Constituent Assembly debates (May 31, 1949), clearly stated:
  • The Governor is a nominal and ornamental head.
  • He is not expected to exercise independent discretion.
  • All executive functions must be performed on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• The advisory opinion appears to elevate the Governor’s role beyond this intended constitutional design, thereby diluting legislative primacy.

3. Democratic and Federal Implications

• Governors are unelected nominees of the Centre, while State legislatures derive legitimacy from popular mandate.
• Prolonged delay in assent:
  • Undermines legislative supremacy.
  • Weakens cooperative federalism.
  • Allows indirect central influence over State legislation.
  • This contradicts judicial precedents such as:
    • Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)– Governor acts on ministerial advice.
    • Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)– Discretion must be narrowly interpreted.

Arguments Supporting the Advisory Opinion

• Upholds separation of powersby preventing judicial intrusion into constitutional functions.
• Respects constitutional silence where the framers did not prescribe explicit timelines.
• Prevents courts from substituting constitutional authorities with judicial mandates.

Arguments Critiquing the Advisory Opinion

• Enables constitutional paralysis through deliberate inaction.
• Weakens accountability of an unelected constitutional office.
• Converts silence into an informal veto over elected legislatures.
• Risks politicisation of the Governor’s office.

Way Forward

• Judicial Clarification
  • A future Constitution Bench should define measurable standards for “reasonable time”.
• Legislative or Constitutional Reform
  • Parliament may consider codifying timelines for assent while preserving federal balance.
• Reinforcing Constitutional Morality
  • Governors must function as impartial constitutional heads, guided by democratic norms rather than political considerations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion demonstrates institutional restraint but fails to resolve the core democratic problem of indefinite gubernatorial inaction. By not engaging sufficiently with the framers’ intent and federal principles, it risks normalising executive delay as a constitutional tool. In a parliamentary democracy, silence by an unelected authority cannot be allowed to override the will of an elected legislature. Clear constitutional or legislative guidance is essential to protect federalism, accountability, and democratic governance.

 

Editorial 2 : On Quality Control Orders, a Welcome Regulatory Reset

Context

India has withdrawn mandatory Quality Control Orders (QCOs) on several industrial raw materials, marking a shift towards risk-based regulation to support manufacturing competitiveness and ease of doing business, in line with recommendations by NITI Aayog.

Introduction

Quality Control Orders were introduced to ensure product quality and protect consumers from substandard goods. However, their rapid expansion to low-risk industrial raw materials increased compliance costs without proportionate safety benefits. The recent rollback reflects a growing recognition that effective regulation must balance quality assurance with manufacturing efficiency and global competitiveness.

Expansion of Quality Control Orders

• QCOs expanded rapidly from around 70 a decade ago to nearly 790 by early 2025
• Initially focused on safety-critical and consumer-facing products
• Gradually extended to industrial raw materialssuch as:
  • Polymers and chemical intermediates
  • Aluminium and copper products
  • Certain steel grades
  • Fibre intermediates used in textiles

Problems with the Earlier QCO Regime

• Mismatch with Global Practices
  • In the EU and the US, mandatory certification is largely limited to finished goods and high-risk products
  • Raw materials are governed through voluntary standards and contractual testing
  • India’s blanket certification approach was not globally aligned
• Higher Costs and Supply Constraints
  • Foreign suppliers from Japan, South Korea, and the EU resisted factory inspections for low-volume shipments
  • Indian manufacturers faced higher input prices and limited sourcing options
• Disproportionate Impact on MSMEs
  • Complex paperwork and long certification timelines
  • Limited BIS testing capacity increased delays
  • Reduced ability to integrate into global value chains
• Erosion of Export Competitiveness
  • Export-oriented sectors such as textiles, engineering goods, and electronics assembly were affected
  • India’s competitiveness weakened vis-à-vis China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh

Recent Rollback of QCOs

• Notification issued on 13 November 2025
  • Compulsory BIS certification withdrawn for:
    • 14 chemical and petrochemical products
    • 6 products under the Ministry of Mines
  • These products are widely used industrial intermediates across manufacturing value chains

Significance of the Regulatory Reset

• Shift to Risk-Based Regulation
  • Focus on regulating products with genuine safety and consumer risks
  • Low-risk raw materials left to market mechanisms
• Support to Manufacturing and PLI Sectors
  • Benefits sectors under PLI schemes such as electronics, specialty steel, and technical textiles
  • Reliable access to global inputs improves scale and export potential
• Ease of Doing Business
  • Reduced compliance burden
  • Faster production cycles
  • Improved investor confidence

Quality Concerns and Safeguards

• Rollback does not dilute quality ambitions
• Mandatory certification continues for:
  • Construction steel
  • Electrical equipment
  • Pressure vessels and safety-critical products
• A sharper regulatory focus improves credibility of quality enforcement

Way Forward

• Adopt a tiered quality regulation framework:
  • Mandatory standards for high-risk products
  • Voluntary standards for low-risk industrial inputs
• Strengthen BIS testing infrastructure and reduce certification timelines
• Conduct impact assessments and stakeholder consultations before issuing new QCOs
• Align Indian standards with international benchmarks

Conclusion

The withdrawal of Quality Control Orders on industrial raw materials marks a pragmatic and necessary regulatory reset. By recognising that excessive regulation can raise costs without improving safety, India has taken a crucial step towards strengthening its manufacturing ecosystem. A risk-based, globally aligned quality framework will help India enhance competitiveness, support MSMEs, and integrate more effectively into global value chains.