Article 200 of the Constitution which deals with the governor’s powers with respect to the bills lists three options before the governor — to give assent to the bill, to withhold the assent or to refer them to the President in specific cases
The Supreme Court’s decision to frame a series of questions on the rights of state governors to withhold their assent to bills duly passed by the state legislatures or refer them to the President of India is a welcome move in that it will throw constitutional light on an area that has remained grey since the inauguration of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s action comes in a petition by the government of Tamil Nadu against the governor’s move referring a number of bills to the President after they were passed a second time by the state Assembly. States including Kerala, Telangana, Punjab and Chhattisgarh have moved the apex court questioning the actions of the respective governors on withholding assent to bills or sending then to the President.
Article 200 of the Constitution which deals with the governor’s powers with respect to the bills lists three options before the governor — to give assent to the bill, to withhold the assent or to refer them to the President in specific cases. While withholding the assent, the governor has to, as soon as possible, return the bill to the state Assembly with reasons that call for a reconsideration. “If the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the governor for assent, the governor shall not withhold assent therefrom,” reads Article 200 verbatim.
The Tamil Nadu governor chose to return a clutch of bills after they had been passed again by the state Assembly, forcing the state government to move the apex court. The court, which sought an explanation on the action of the government, has opined that the governor followed his own procedures. The inference was clear — he acted beyond his constitutional mandate.
As constitutional heads of states, the governors were expected to play the role of elder statespersons though there was considerable objection in the Constituent Assembly to the incorporation of a gubernatorial position. The clarification that the governor would act only on the aid and advice of the elected council of ministers ended the debate and most governors followed the rule book in the formative years of the republic. However, this changed as different political formations started ruling at the Centre and in the states. Some of them acted as if they had been appointed under the Government of India Act, 1935, which vested the de facto and de jure powers with the governor as an agent of the British crown. This phenomenon became more pronounced after the NDA came to power at the Centre in 2014.
The key question is whether governors, appointed as they are by the Union government and not answerable to the people, as well as with no legislative powers at their disposal, have the right to sit in judgment on the bills passed by state Assemblies. The Supreme Court’s list of questions comprehensively addresses this issue, plus the other interpretations the governors have given while justifying their actions. An unequivocal decision by the apex court on this contentious topic will make governance in states easier and more democratic for certain.
