The Supreme Court of India upheld the use of Urdu on the signboard of a municipal council building in Maharashtra, emphasizing the cultural significance of language and the need for inclusivity. The court rejected a petition from a former councillor who challenged the legality of the Urdu signage, affirming that the use of Urdu is not barred under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022.

Key Points

• The Supreme Court asserted that "language is culture" and should not be a divisive factor, promoting Urdu as a representation of “Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb” or Hindustani culture.
• Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran reiterated that misconceptions about Urdu being an alien language must be challenged, recognizing it as an integral part of Indian heritage.
• The judgment emphasized that languages belong to communities and regions, rather than religions, highlighting that Urdu, like Hindi and Marathi, is an Indo-Aryan language developed in India.
• Urdu serves as a primary medium of communication, essential for effective interaction within communities, as the court noted.
• India boasts immense linguistic diversity, with more than 122 major languages, including 34 specified in the Census, wherein Urdu ranks as the sixth most spoken scheduled language.
• The court noted that the prejudice against Urdu might stem from the misconception that it is foreign to India, urging people to embrace the rich tapestry of Indian languages.
• Historical context demonstrates that discussions about language in India date back to before Independence, with ‘Hindustani’ being considered a potential national language uniting various regional tongues.
• The language divide, particularly between Hindi and Urdu, was exacerbated by colonial rule, leading to misunderstandings that falsely associate Urdu with Islam and Hindi with Hinduism.
• The court reiterated that the municipal council's use of Urdu does not contravene any law, as providing services in a language the local population understands serves the community’s best interests.
• It was highlighted that Urdu continues to influence court parlance, showcasing its relevance in legal contexts and everyday conversations in India.

Overall, the Supreme Court's ruling reinforces the notion that promoting Urdu and recognizing its value can unite rather than divide communities, fostering a dialogue of inclusivity in India's pluralistic society.

Telangana's Congress government has taken a historic step by issuing a gazette notification to implement Scheduled Caste (SC) sub-categorisation, known as "reservation within reservation." This initiative, formalized under the Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act, 2025, establishes three distinct categories of Scheduled Castes in the state for the allocation of reservations in education and employment.

Key Points from the Article:

• Telangana's government has officially implemented SC sub-categorisation, making it the first state in India to do so.
• Scheduled Castes will now be divided into three categories:
  • Group I: 1 percent reservation (15 socio-economically backward castes)
  • Group II: 9 percent reservation (18 castes)
  • Group III: 5 percent reservation (26 castes)
• The gazette notification was issued after the act received the governor's assent on April 8, 2025, and was published on April 14, 2025.
• The Chief Minister, A Revanth Reddy, expressed pride in making history on the birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, emphasizing the move as an act of social justice and a response to a long-standing demand.
• The government aims to consider the SC population in the upcoming 2026 census for potential adjustments in reservation percentages.
• The implementation process faced challenges due to opposition from certain sub-castes (Malas) while the Madigas, another SC sub-caste, have long advocated for such sub-categorisation.
• The Supreme Court had recently allowed further sub-classification of SCs and STs, paving the way for this implementation.

Overall, this progress marks a significant development in the drive for equitable opportunities within marginalized sections of society in Telangana. The division of SCs aims to ensure that socio-economically backward communities benefit more directly from reservation policies, thereby enhancing their representation and access to resources.

Mehul Choksi, a fugitive diamond trader implicated in the significant Punjab National Bank (PNB) loan fraud worth ₹13,000 crore, has been arrested in Belgium following an extradition request from India. Choksi's legal representatives are challenging the arrest, citing his medical condition—specifically, his ongoing treatment for cancer—as grounds for bail. They argue that he does not pose a flight risk.

Background on Choksi's Legal Trouble:

• Choksi, who fled India in January 2018, just prior to the filing of an FIR in the PNB case, had acquired citizenship in Antigua and Barbuda through an investment program.
• He is facing multiple charges including those from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for the issuance of fraudulent Letters of Undertaking that led to significant losses for the PNB.
• Additional allegations against him include money laundering, with accusations that he and his associates misappropriated large amounts of money through illicit means, leading to serious financial crimes.
• In 2018, under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, the ED sought action against Choksi, which is still pending.

Extradition Attempts and Legal Arrangements:

• India lacks a formal extradition treaty with Antigua and Barbuda; however, there exists an extradition arrangement established in 2001.
• Previous attempts to extradite Choksi have faced challenges. In 2021, he was captured in Dominica under controversial circumstances, where his family claimed he had been abducted by Indian agents, though he was ultimately returned to Antigua and Barbuda.
• Choksi is currently in Antwerp for medical reasons, supported by his Belgian spouse, and possesses an ‘F Card’ permitting his residency in Belgium as a family member of an EU citizen.

Future Legal Proceedings:

• Legal processes concerning extradition may be prolonged, especially as Choksi's defense team plans to leverage his health issues in their arguments against deportation.
• Additionally, they may reference the alleged “kidnapping” incident in Dominica as part of their case.

Important Points:

• Mehul Choksi has been arrested in Belgium; India has filed for his extradition.
• His legal team is appealing the arrest based on his medical condition and the assertion that he is not a flight risk.
• Faces charges in India related to a significant financial fraud involving the Punjab National Bank.
• Significant international legal complexities surround his case, including a lack of formal extradition treaty between India and Antigua and Barbuda.
• Choksi's past attempts to evade extradition have included claims of life threats and abduction allegations.
• The legal journey ahead regarding his extradition to India may be lengthy and complicated, particularly due to his health arguments.

This situation reveals the intricacies of international law and the implications of financial fraud, alongside the ongoing challenges faced in securing extradition from abroad.

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is celebrated as a significant Dalit leader and legal genius in India, particularly for his role in framing the Indian Constitution. He recognized that ending colonialism alone wouldn’t improve the lives of marginalized groups like Dalits and women, as entrenched social hierarchies, particularly the caste system, would persist. His influential speech, "Annihilation of Caste," which he intended to deliver in 1936, highlighted the need to eradicate the caste system completely, diverging from more moderate reformist perspectives that aimed for gradual change.

Key concepts emphasized by Ambedkar regarding an ideal society include:

• Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity: These principles must guide societal organization. Fraternity, he argued, represents democracy and requires social mobility and interconnectedness among groups.
• Critique of Caste System: Ambedkar condemned the caste system for perpetuating social isolation and inequality. He pointed out that the caste system creates barriers between communities and fosters a mindset of self-protection rather than collective identity.
• Social Interaction: He stressed the importance of examining how different social groups interact and coexist to gauge the health of society. He questioned whether shared interests transcended group boundaries or if divisions dominated social life.
• Need for Change: Ambedkar urged Hindus to recognize the need for constant evolution of values in society and to abandon the rigid, eternal nature attributed to the caste system.

He provided a stark critique of the caste system, suggesting that:

• Castes maintain rigidly segregated lives, including dining and marriage customs, leading to a lack of unity among Hindus.
• The caste system engenders a ‘warring’ spirit among groups focused solely on protecting their own interests, making them akin to nations in isolation rather than forming a cohesive society.
• The insistence on preserving traditional caste structures prevents societal progress and must be re-evaluated in favor of evolving moral standards.

Ambedkar’s radical views and demands for a complete dismantling of caste hierarchies laid the groundwork for future movements advocating for equality and social reform in India.

Important points:

• Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is a prominent figure against caste discrimination and contributed significantly to the Indian Constitution.
• He argued that removing colonialism alone wouldn't improve conditions for marginalized groups like Dalits.
• His seminal work, "Annihilation of Caste," emphasized the need to dismantle the caste system entirely rather than advocating for incremental reform.
• Ambedkar's vision for an ideal society is based on liberty, equality, and fraternity, with an emphasis on social mobility and shared community interests.
• He criticized the caste system for fostering division and isolation among Hindus, reducing them to self-serving factions.
• Ambedkar called for a reevaluation of social values and the need for change within Hindu society, warning against the rigidity of caste traditions.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling regarding the role of Governors and the President in the law-making process has generated considerable discussion and concern. The decision emphasizes the need for timely action on legislative bills but simultaneously raises questions about the balance of power among government institutions.

Summary:

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Governor cannot impede the democratic process by delaying assent to bills, establishing crucial timelines for action. This ruling was issued by a two-judge bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala. However, the 415-page ruling has sparked worries due to its implications regarding the President's role in the legislative process, imposing a three-month timeline for the President to clear bills referred by the Governor. The Court suggested that states could seek a directive against the President if action is not taken within this timeframe, marking a significant and contentious move.

Key points of concern include:

• The ruling comes amid ongoing conflicts between elected governments in opposition-led states and the central government-appointed Governors.
• The Tamil Nadu Governor, R N Ravi, has faced criticism for not respecting previous court judgments and for causing delays in legislative processes by referring bills to the President rather than granting assent.
• Tamil Nadu had taken legal action as bills accumulated before the Governor, with the Court indicating that governors should adhere to constitutional mandates regarding legislative timelines.
• The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of timely governance, noting that the state legislature's tenure is five years, and representatives must remain accountable to their constituents.
• The involvement of the President in this process introduces complexities regarding Article 361, which protects the President, and raises constitutional concerns about the separation of powers.
• The Court's decision to review constitutional matters related to bills—as opposed to enacted laws—may overstep traditional boundaries of judicial intervention in political questions, marking a departure from practices observed by courts in other democracies.

Important Sentences:

• The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor cannot stifle the democratic process by arbitrarily withholding assent to bills.
• A timeline was established for the Governor to act, raising concerns about the implications of involving the President in the legislative process.
• The Court warned that it could impose time limits on governors who do not comply with legislative timelines.
• The case originated in Tamil Nadu, where long delays in bill assent were reported, particularly under Governor R N Ravi.
• The ruling underscores the necessity for legislative accountability, given the limited tenure of state legislators.
• The introduction of the President's role complicates issues related to constitutional protections and the separation of powers.
• The Court must consider the potential unintended consequences of its ruling on the balance of power within government.
• The ruling has sparked debates about whether the Supreme Court is overstepping its bounds in mandating timelines for political figures.

In conclusion, the ruling opens a complex dialogue about the dynamics between state legislatures, governors, and the presidency, potentially challenging long-accepted notions of governance and judicial authority. It remains essential for the Supreme Court to navigate these waters carefully to uphold democratic principles while respecting the sanctity of the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal ruling on April 8, 2025, clarifying the powers of the President and Governors regarding their assent to legislation from State legislatures, under Articles 201 and 200 of the Constitution. This comprehensive 415-page judgement has rekindled discussions about the historical roles of Governors in the country, outlining how their functions have evolved from colonial times to the present day.

Key Points from the Judgement:

• Historical Context: The judgement traces the evolution of the Governor's role, starting from the East India Company to British Crown governance, transitioning through various legislative reforms, particularly highlighting the GoI Act of 1919 and 1935, which maintained significant authority for Governors.
• Post-Independence Changes: The role of the Governor transformed significantly after India’s independence in 1947, with a shift from a colonial framework to provisions outlined in the Constitution, especially with the omittance of discretionary expressions in the India (Provisional Constitution) Order of 1947.
• Nominations vs. Elections: During the framing of the Constitution, there was a critical debate regarding whether Governors should be elected or nominated. Ultimately, the framing body decided on Presidential nominations, influenced by experiences from partition and aimed at preventing separatism. Many officials supported this recommendation, citing the need for a non-partisan figure as a head of state.
• Constitutional Provisions: Article 163 allows the Governor to act on ministerial advice or in certain matters at their discretion, but Justice B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that this discretion must be limited and not oppose ministerial advice.
• Assent to Bills: The court substantiated from Constituent Assembly debates that Governors lack indefinite veto powers (withholding assent without reason) and cannot exercise a pocket veto (delaying Bills indefinitely). Consequently, it found that the ambiguity in Articles 200 and 201 warranted established timelines for the assent process.

New Guidelines Established:

• Timelines for Assent: The court mandated:
  • The President must decide on a bill’s assent within three months.
  • Governors should grant, withhold, or refer Bills within one to three months.
• Addressing Delays: The court emphasized that any failure to comply with these timelines could allow State governments to seek judicial remedies and that unreasonable delays by Governors could threaten the federal structure of governance.

Implications:

• Federal Structure Defense: The Supreme Court's ruling aims to ensure timely decisions on state legislation, reflecting accountability and responsiveness in the political system. It recognizes the need to uphold the federal character of governance and provide recourse against inaction by Governors.

In essence, this judgement not only defines the operational boundaries for the President and Governors regarding legislative assent but also reinforces the historical intent of the Constitution to promote cooperative governance. It marks a crucial step towards enhancing the responsibility of constitutional offices and addressing the nuances of governance in a federal structure.

Important Sentences:

• The Supreme Court clarified powers of the President and Governors concerning assent to State legislation under Articles 201 and 200.
• The judgement provides historical context on the Governor’s role from colonial India to independence and constitutional formulation.
• Governors historically had significant authority, which evolved with major legislative reforms.
• The Constitution's framers opted for President-nominated Governors to mitigate risks of partisanship and regional divisiveness.
• Article 163 allows Governor discretion but must conform to the principles set forth in constitutional debates.
• The Supreme Court mandated specific timelines for granting assent to legislation, with consequences for delay.
• The judgement emphasizes the necessity to defend India's federal framework against potential threats from gubernatorial inaction.

The Telangana government has taken a significant step by implementing the Telangana Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2025, which categorizes Scheduled Castes (SC) into three groups. This action follows a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on August 1, 2024, which validated the legal framework for sub-classifying SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to provide targeted reservations for the most marginalized within these communities. The act's official rollout begins on April 14, 2025, and positions Telangana as the first Indian state to execute this classification.

Key points of the categorization include:

• Scheduled Castes will be classified into three distinct groups based on detailed empirical data, examining the social, economic, educational, and political conditions impacting these communities.
• The classification introduces:
  • Group I: 15 most backward SC sub-castes receive a 1% reservation despite constituting only 0.5% of the population, aimed at improving their educational and employment access.
  • Group II: 18 sub-castes, totaling 9% reservation, which have historically received limited benefits.
  • Group III: 26 relatively better-off sub-castes, granted a 5% reservation.
• A cabinet sub-committee led by Minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy and co-chaired by Minister C. Damodar Rajanarsimha has completed the categorization, with 33 of the 59 sub-castes retaining their previous classification.
• The introduction of this categorization will affect future recruitment for government jobs, although it will not retroactively apply to already advertised positions.
• The Telangana government anticipates modifying these reservation quotas further based on data following the 2026 census.

Overall, the government's initiative is aimed at providing more equitable opportunities for the SC communities in education and employment, seeking to uplift the most disadvantaged groups effectively.

Important Sentences:

• Telangana has become the first state in India to implement the Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2025.
• The classification of Scheduled Castes is based on social, economic, educational, and political status, following the Supreme Court's Constitutionally endorsing sub-classification.
• Three groups have been established: Group I with 1% reservation, Group II with 9%, and Group III with 5%.
• The implementation is effective from April 14, 2025, with future government recruitments reflecting this categorization.
• The state plans to enhance SC reservations post the Census 2026 data.
• Only a limited number of sub-castes underwent reclassification, reflecting a conscious effort to stabilize existing beneficiaries while addressing marginalized communities.

The recent Supreme Court verdict dated April 8, 2025, has significant implications for the relationship between state governments and Governors in India regarding the assent to legislation. This 415-page judgment articulates the historical context of the Governor's role and stipulates new timelines for the assent process.

Summary of the Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court clarified the powers given to the President and Governors regarding legislation passed by State Assemblies, particularly under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
• Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan emphasized the historical evolution of the Governor's role, tracing it from the British colonial period through various governance reforms.
• The judgment highlights that the Raj Bhavans, or Governors' palaces, have a significant historical backdrop that has influenced their powers and functions over the years.

Historical Context:

• The transition from the East India Company to Crown rule in 1858 redefined the role of the Governor to act under the supervision of the Governor General.
• The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919) and the Government of India Act (1935) emphasized the Governor's importance in provincial administration but also his need to act on ministerial advice while preserving some discretionary powers.
• Leading up to Independence, various reports and proposals advocated for a Westminster-style governance, favoring the retention of the Governor's office.

Constitutional Framework:

• The establishment of the Constitution in 1950 transformed the Governor's role, where the emphasis shifted from discretion to accountability, leading to their appointment by Presidential nomination.
• The debate within the Constituent Assembly highlighted tensions around partisan politics and the potential for conflict between an elected Governor and the Chief Minister.

Key Articles:

• Article 163 mandates that the Governor shall function based on the advice of the council of ministers, while limited discretionary powers are constitutionally permitted.
• The Constituent Assembly, led by figures like B.R. Ambedkar, actively removed the concept of “acting in discretion” from provisions concerning the Governor's assent to legislation.

Judgment Outcomes:

• The Supreme Court determined that Governors do not possess the authority to indefinitely withhold assent (veto) to a Bill or to keep a Bill pending (pocket veto), emphasizing accountability.
• New timelines were prescribed wherein the President must grant assent to Bills within three months and Governors must decide within one to three months regarding assent, withholding, or referral to the President.
• The court indicated that failure by Governors to adhere to these timelines could empower states to seek court intervention, thus maintaining the balance of power and ensuring that federal integrity is not jeopardized.

Implications:

• The ruling signifies a shift towards more uniform governance practices and aims to curtail arbitrary delays by Governors, which could threaten the functioning of elected governments.
• The delineation of responsibilities and timelines suggests a stronger emphasis on federal accountability and governance efficiency.

Important Sentences:

• "The Supreme Court clarified the powers given to the President and Governors regarding legislation passed by State Assemblies."
• "The judgment highlights that the Raj Bhavans, or Governors' palaces, have significant historical context influencing their powers over the years."
• "The court determined that Governors do not possess the authority to indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill."
• "New timelines were prescribed wherein the President must grant assent to Bills within three months."
• "Failure by Governors to adhere to these timelines could empower states to seek court intervention."

This ruling not only sets a framework for the timely assent of bills but also reflects a significant evolution in the role of Governors, aligning it more closely with the principles of democratic accountability and efficiency in governance.

On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a significant ruling regarding the powers of the Governor of Tamil Nadu, R.N. Ravi, in relation to the assent of 10 pending Bills passed by the State legislature. Here are the main points and implications of the Court’s decision:

Summary of the Verdict

• The Supreme Court ruled that Governor R.N. Ravi’s refusal to grant assent to the 10 Bills was "illegal and erroneous in law."
• The judgment stressed the necessity of cooperative federalism and addressed the growing politicization of the Governor's role, particularly in Opposition-dominated States.
• The ruling confirmed that once a Bill has passed the State legislature, the Governor’s options are limited to granting assent, withholding assent, or reserving the Bill for the President’s consideration.

Key Articles and Provisions

• Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the Governor’s responsibilities concerning Bill assent, excluding Money Bills, which automatically receive assent.
• For non-Money Bills, the Governor can withhold assent and must return the Bill “as soon as possible” if seeking reconsideration, though this has often led to delays and "pocket vetoes."
• The Court clarified that the Governor’s withholding assent cannot equate to an unrestricted veto power over duly enacted legislation, reinforcing the essence of representative democracy.

Limitations on Gubernatorial Powers

• The Supreme Court limited the discretion of Governors to reserve Bills for Presidential consideration after being returned and resubmitted, allowing such action only if the new version of the Bill is materially different.
• Reservation cannot be based on “personal dissatisfaction” or “political expediency” but should respond to grave threats to democratic principles.

Timelines and Accountability

• The Court mandated a three-month deadline for the President to decide on Bills referred by the Governor, while any delay must be justified to the State.
• The ruling set strict timelines for the Governor as well: he must act within one month regarding a Cabinet-recommended Bill and must outline reasons if he chooses to withhold assent contrary to this advice.
• A similar guideline states that if a Bill is re-passed by the State legislature after reconsideration, the Governor must grant assent within one month.

Judicial Oversight and Inherent Powers

• Any delay or deviation from these timelines may only be condoned for “reasonable grounds.”
• The Court emphasized that all gubernatorial actions must be subject to judicial review, ensuring accountability toward the will expressed by the electorate.
• Utilizing its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court deemed the 10 Bills to have received assent due to the Governor’s non-compliance with legal obligations.

Implications of the Ruling

• Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P.D.T. Achary remarked that the ruling is pivotal for maintaining federalism, providing remedies to Opposition-led State governments against undue delays by Governors.
• The judgment sets a precedent formally establishing timelines for both the Governor and the President, aiming to prevent legislative processes from being indefinitely stalled.
• This ruling could signal a broader judicial intervention in cases where governmental action is delayed concerning collegium recommendations, potentially reinforcing checks on executive power.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling is a landmark affirmation of the legislative authority of State governments and a critical oversight of the discretionary power of Governors, enhancing accountability and reinforcing the democratic process in India.

Important Points

• Supreme Court ruled Governor's refusal to assent was illegal.
• It emphasized the significance of cooperative federalism.
• Article 200 of the Constitution defines Governor powers regarding Bills.
• The ruling imposes strict timelines for Governor and President assent.
• Gubernatorial discretion is to be subject to judicial review.
• Court deemed Bills to have received assent due to Governor's inaction.

The Supreme Court's verdict on April 8, 2025, significantly impacts the interpreted powers of the President and the Governors concerning their roles in the legislative process as established by Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan provided an extensive analysis of historical transitions leading to the current understanding of these constitutional roles and frameworks, ultimately urging from past discussions the need for defined timelines for Governors and the President to act on bills.

Summary of Key Points:

• Supreme Court Ruling:

  • The verdict clarifies the President's and Governors' powers concerning state legislature Bills, addressing concerns over the discretionary powers historically held by Governors.

• Historical Context:

  • The transition from the East India Company's governance to the British Crown marked the initial formal functionality of Governors, whose roles evolved with various legislative reforms (e.g., Government of India Act of 1919, Government of India Act of 1935).
  • Although the 1935 Act offered more provincial autonomy, it maintained significant discretionary powers for Governors, such as vetoing legislation.

• Constitutional Framing:

  • The framers of the Constitution faced the critical decision of choosing how Governors would be appointed: through election or presidential nomination.
  • Concerns about potential conflicts between an elected Governor and the Chief Minister influenced the shift toward having a governor nominated by the President, a decision rooted in the desire to prevent partisanship and preserve governance unity.

• Ambedkar’s Perspective:

  • B.R. Ambedkar emphasized limiting the Governor’s discretion in governance to ensure responsible government functions, removing the concept of acting "in his discretion" from key constitutional articles.

• Legislative Approval Process:

  • The Court ruled that Governors do not have the power to withhold assent indefinitely or employ a "pocket veto" and established strict timelines for both the President and Governors to act on state legislation.
  • Specifically, the President must decide on assent within three months, while Governors have a prescribed timeline ranging from one to three months to grant or deny assent.

• Implications of the Ruling:

  • The judgement promotes accountability in the Governor's role, establishing a systemic check against delays that could jeopardize the federal structure.
  • Any significant inaction by a Governor in exercising these legislative powers is classified as a potential threat to the federal polity, necessitating judicial intervention when due process is not observed.

• Recommendations and Endorsements:

  • The Supreme Court drew upon past recommendations from various commissions (e.g., the Sarkaria and Punchi Commissions) for ensuring timely processing of state Bills and formalizing guidelines on Governors' discretionary powers.

• Future Outlook:

  • By mandating clear action timelines for legislative assent, the court offers a path for state governments to challenge delays and reinforces the intended balance between state and central authority.

In conclusion, this landmark verdict seeks to reinforce the constitutional balance between state governance and central oversight, ensuring timely legislative processes and reducing the likelihood of friction between elected state officials and appointed Governors.