Governor’s discretion under Article 200 & Environment Responsibility

1. Examine whether the Governor’s discretion under Article 200 is compatible with the principles of representative democracy and cooperative federalism.

IN NEWS: Blow to States: On the Supreme Court and State Bills

Article 200 grants the Governor powers to assent, withhold assent, return a Bill, or reserve it for the President. While these powers appear discretionary, the Governor is a constitutional head, not an elected authority. This raises concerns about how such discretion aligns with representative democracy and cooperative federalism.

Compatibility with Representative Democracy:

(a) Conflict with the mandate of elected representatives

• The State legislature reflects popular will; the Governor is appointed.
• Excessive discretion undermines the supremacy of the elected House.

(b) Possibility of a “pocket veto”

• Prolonged or unexplained delays distort the legislative process.
• The SC (2025 Presidential Reference) held that indefinite delay is unconstitutional and courts can issue a limited mandamus.

(c) Limited scope of discretion

• Governor must act on aid and advice except in exceptional cases.
• Discretion cannot extend to policy disagreements or political considerations.

Compatibility with Cooperative Federalism:

(a) Risk of centralisation through reservation of Bills

• Reserving Bills for the President without constitutional grounds shifts power to the Union.
• Weakens State autonomy and disrupts federal balance.

(b) Potential for political friction

• Misuse of discretion becomes more pronounced when different parties rule at the Centre and State.
• Leads to adversarial rather than cooperative federalism.

(c) Judicial safeguards exist but are limited

• SC has refused “deemed assent,” but allows intervention against arbitrary delay.
• Ensures Governor does not paralyse State legislation.

The discretion under Article 200 is constitutionally valid, but its misuse—through delay, overbroad reservation of Bills, or disregard of ministerial advice—undermines representative democracy and cooperative federalism. Its compatibility ultimately depends on adherence to constitutional morality, political neutrality, and respect for the democratic mandate.

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/blow-to-states-on-the-supreme-court-and-state-bills/article70308688.ece

2. A large industrial company has complied with the minimum legal requirement of planting a green belt within its premises. However, local communities complain that the company’s activities have degraded nearby forests, affected groundwater recharge, and increased pollution.

The company argues that it has met all regulatory requirements.

As the environmental officer, identify the ethical issues involved and propose a course of action balancing legality, ecological integrity, and stakeholder welfare.

IN NEWS: Rethinking a symbol of ‘environment responsibility’

The case presents a conflict between legal compliance and ethical responsibility. While the company has fulfilled the minimum statutory requirement of planting a green belt, its broader activities have adversely affected the local ecology and communities.

Ethical Issues Involved

Environmental Ethics:

The company’s limited focus on legal compliance ignores its moral duty to minimise ecological harm. Degradation of forests, groundwater depletion, and pollution violate principles of ecological stewardship.

Stakeholder Responsibility:

Local communities are key stakeholders whose health, livelihood, and environment are being compromised. Neglecting their concerns reflects a failure of corporate social responsibility.

Intergenerational Equity:

Damage to forests and water resources affects the rights of future generations. Ethical governance requires ensuring that development today does not compromise future ecological security.

Legal vs. Moral Obligation:

Meeting the legal minimum does not absolve the company of broader ethical duties. Ethical conduct demands going beyond compliance toward sustainable practices.

Proposed Course of Action

Comprehensive Environmental Audit:

Initiate an independent ecological impact assessment covering groundwater, forest health, and pollution levels.

Community Consultation Mechanism:

Establish a grievance redressal system and regular dialogue with local communities.

Off-site Ecological Restoration:

Require the company to undertake biodiversity restoration in degraded forest patches and recharge structures to compensate for ecological damage.

Strengthen Compliance Beyond Minimum Norms:

Implement nature-based solutions, advanced pollution-control technologies, and expand the green belt beyond the mandated area.

Monitoring & Transparency:

Set up third-party monitoring and publicly disclose environmental performance data.

Balancing industrial activity with ecological and community welfare requires moving from mere compliance to ethical environmental stewardship. This approach ensures long-term sustainability and trust between industry, government, and society.

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/rethinking-a-symbol-of-environment-responsibility/article70308450.ece