The court says governors can’t delay or reject bills as they must respect democracy and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruling which insists that the governors act on the aid and advice of the councils of ministers while exercising their powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with the power of the governors on signing bills into laws, is historic in that it underlines the primacy of the Constitution and the values of democracy it professes.
Referring to the governors’ choice about giving their assent to the bills passed by state legislatures, Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi told a group of civil service aspirants sometime ago that “when you say 'withhold', the bill is dead”. The Supreme Court has now decided that the bills are not dead when a governor withholds his assent for a time of his choice. He has no such power and is expected to sign on the dotted lines of the paper on which the bills are printed, especially if they are re-presented to him. Playing smart with the will of the people, as reflected in the resolutions of the elected legislatures, is erroneous in law and non-existing, the court has held.
The court was not reinventing the wheel while setting limits for governors’ actions. It was only reiterating and rephrasing what has been said in the Article: Give assent to the bills, withhold the assent and send the bill back to legislature or to refer to the President of India if a bill falls in certain specific areas. When a bill is re-presented to him after reconsideration by the legislature, he “shall not withhold assent”. The court has now said if the governor exercises the second or third choice, then he must go by the advice of the council of ministers and set time limits for such actions. The court’s intent can be read in no uncertain terms in its use of its extraordinary power under Article 142 and in declaring the 10 bills the governor withheld as laws.
The principle that should rule the decision-making processes in the Raj Bhavans, a relic of the colonial past, is the Constitution which vests all the powers in the people of India who exercise it though their elected representatives. Some governors act as if they are appointed by the British under the Government of India Act, 1935, and that the real power is vested with them, unmindful of the fact that this country is run by the Constitution which the people gave to themselves. Such governors must now read the apex court’s ruling to enlighten themselves on the ground reality, and behave.
The role of the governor should be limited to that of a “friend, a philosopher and guide” and he should be guided “not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertook”, the court has held and has reminded the Raj Bhavan occupants that “in times of conflict, he must be the harbinger of consensus and resolution, lubricating the functioning of the state machinery by his sagacity and wisdom, and not bring it to a standstill. He must be the catalyst and not the inhibitor”. This is a reminder which came a bit late. But it is always good to be late than never.
The verdict offers as much a lesson to errant governors as to the Union government, which sought to control state governments run by parties opposed to it through pliable henchmen.
The court has now ended the non-existent supervisory role the Union government thought it possessed; it is the people of the state who decide their fate, it would remind all those are concerned. And this goes with the tone and tenor of the Constitution.
Democratic governance is all about checks and balances. To err and to correct are also part of the democratic process. All those who exercise power under the Constitution must recalibrate their positions against today’s Supreme Court order and make amends as needed.
Democracy is a work in progress, and there is no end to reforming its institutions and processes.
