The Conventions of the Indian Constitution

The Governor acts on advice except where the Constitution requires discretion. The exceptions are narrow: reserving a Bill for the President under article 200, reporting under article 356, and functions under the Sixth Schedule and certain State-specific provisions.

The Governor exercises the article 200 power within a reasonable time and on advice. This convention was broken in several States, and in In re Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President, decided on 20 November 2025, the Supreme Court held that no timelines may be judicially prescribed under articles 200 and 201, that no deemed assent may be granted under article 142, and that the article 200 function is not justiciable on its merits, though a limited mandamus lies against prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction. That decision displaces the earlier holding in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, decided on 8 April 2025, so far as that decision had prescribed timelines and treated assent as deemed.

The Governor invites the leader who can command a majority and does not decide the question himself. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1, holds that the Governor cannot act on his own in summoning or advancing a session to bring about a change of government.

The conventions of Parliament

The Speaker acts impartially. Not in the text, and central to the working of articles 93 to 96 and of the Tenth Schedule.

A money Bill originates in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha's role is recommendatory. This half is law, in articles 109 and 110.

The Prime Minister keeps the President informed. Article 78 makes this a duty of the Prime Minister in terms, so again a convention has been enacted.

The Leader of the Opposition is consulted on certain appointments. This is statutory for some bodies and conventional for others.

The conventions of the federation

The Union consults a State before altering its boundaries. Article 3 requires the President to refer the Bill to the State legislature for its views within a specified period, and the views are not binding, so the legal requirement is consultation and the convention is that it is taken seriously.

Members of the Rajya Sabha represent States. Article 80 provides for representation of the States, and the practice of nominating candidates without a real connection to the State led to litigation on the residence requirement.

A worked example

A State's Council of Ministers advises the Governor to summon the Assembly. He does not.

The text. Article 174(1) provides that the Governor shall from time to time summon the House, and article 163(1) provides that he acts on advice except where required to exercise discretion. Summoning is not a discretionary function.

The convention. He summons on advice.

When it is broken. Nabam Rebia holds that the Governor's power under article 174 is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and not at his own discretion, and the decisions taken in the session so summoned were set aside.

So the convention here has become law, by judicial decision rather than amendment, which is a third route to the traffic described in [Conventions That Have Hardened Into Law].

The cases

Facts. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1, arose when the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh advanced the session of the Legislative Assembly and fixed its agenda, including the removal of the Speaker, on his own initiative and against the advice of the Council of Ministers, in the course of a political crisis.

Held, by a Constitution Bench of five. The Governor's power to summon, prorogue and dissolve under article 174 must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not at his own discretion; the discretion under article 163(1) is confined to the functions the Constitution expressly requires him to exercise in his discretion. The Governor's actions and everything that followed were set aside and the status quo ante restored.

Why it matters here. It is the leading Indian authority on the limits of a Governor's discretion and the strongest example of a convention being made enforceable through the judicial review of a legal power.

Facts. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, arose from proclamations under article 356 dismissing State governments, in several cases without any test of majority support on the floor.

Held, by nine judges. A proclamation under article 356 is justiciable; the satisfaction must rest on relevant material; the floor of the House is the appropriate forum for testing majority support; and the Assembly should not be dissolved before both Houses of Parliament have approved the proclamation.

Why it matters here. It converts the convention about how a majority is tested into a legal standard against which the exercise of a constitutional power is reviewed.

Distinctions

What beginners get wrong

"A written constitution has no conventions." India is the counter-example, and the syllabus asks about it for that reason.

"Article 74(1) always said the advice was binding." It did not. The words requiring the President to act in accordance with the advice were inserted by the Forty Second Amendment in 1976, and the reconsideration proviso by the Forty Fourth in 1978.

"The Governor has wide discretion." Article 163(1) confines discretion to the functions the Constitution expressly requires to be exercised in discretion, and Nabam Rebia enforces that reading.

Limits and criticism

Conventions here are contested along political lines. The Governor's office is the standing example, and each side's account of the convention tracks whether it holds power at the centre.

Judicialisation has limits. The 2025 Reference makes clear that the courts will not prescribe timelines or deem assent, so the convention remains a convention with only a narrow legal backstop.

Enactment can freeze a convention badly. Article 74(1) as it stands makes advice binding with only one reconsideration, which removes any residual discretion in an extreme case.

Quick revision

1. India has conventions because the text confers powers wider than anyone intends to use: articles 53(1), 111 and 75(1).
2. President on advice: convention until 1976, then article 74(1); reconsideration proviso 1978.
3. Article 78: the Prime Minister's duty to inform the President, enacted from the start.
4. Governor: article 163(1) confines discretion; Nabam Rebia holds article 174 is exercised on advice.
5. Majority tested on the floor: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
6. Article 200: In re Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills, 20 November 2025, no timelines, no deemed assent, not justiciable on merits, limited mandamus for indefinite inaction.
7. The Speaker's impartiality remains purely conventional.

Test yourself

1. How can a constitution of 395 articles depend on conventions? Because the text confers legal powers in wide terms and leaves their exercise to practice. Article 53(1) vests the executive power in the President, article 111 lets him withhold assent, and article 75(1) lets him appoint the Prime Minister. What confines all three is convention, reinforced in one case by the amendment of article 74(1) in 1976 and 1978.

2. Trace the rule that the President acts on advice from convention to law. From 1950 it was a convention modelled on British practice. The Forty Second Amendment of 1976 inserted into article 74(1) the words requiring the President to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Forty Fourth Amendment of 1978 added the proviso allowing him to require reconsideration once, after which he must act on the advice tendered.

3. What is the current position where a Governor does not act on a Bill? In re Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President, decided on 20 November 2025, holds that no timelines may be judicially prescribed under articles 200 and 201, no deemed assent may be granted under article 142, and the article 200 function is not justiciable on its merits, but that a limited mandamus lies where the inaction is prolonged, unexplained and indefinite.

4. Which Indian conventions have become legally enforceable, and by what route? Three routes. By amendment: the President acting on advice, article 74(1). By original enactment: articles 75(5) and 78. By judicial review of the legal power the convention constrained: the testing of majority support on the floor after S.R. Bommai, and the summoning of an Assembly on advice after Nabam Rebia.