The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned that an expansive reading of Article 200 of the Constitution could allow Governors to block even money bills. During the hearing of Presidential Reference on the issue of assent to bills, Justice PS Narasimha has been quoted as saying by LiveLaw, “With this power, even a money bill can be withheld. The proviso will not apply there. There is a big problem with that interpretation.”
The case is being heard by a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar.
The Central government has argued that withholding assent is an independent power under Article 200, which could mean that a Bill lapses without being returned to the Assembly.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, defended this interpretation. “Withholding is a fourth option available to the Governor, apart from granting assent, returning to the Assembly and reserving for the President’s assent,” he has been quoted as saying. He also insisted that such decisions were not open to judicial review. When the CJI asked, “Can the court ask the Governor why he is withholding?”, Salve’s response was a categorical, “No.”
Justice Narasimha, however, pressed the concern further. He pointed out that while the proviso to Article 200 permits a Governor to return a Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, it specifically excludes money bills. “He can stop a money bill, straightaway,” the judge observed, to which Salve replied, “He can.”
Justice Narasimha further asked, "How do you reconcile that a money bill can be rejected at the outset by the Governor by the substantive provision?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected that Article 207 has the answer, as a money bill can be introduced only with the Governor’s recommendation.
“Hence, there is no question of the Governor withholding a money bill, since it is introduced with the Governor’s recommendation,” he has been quoted as saying.
Salve, however, maintained that the legislature could pass a version different from what the Governor recommended. “If what is approved finally does not accord with what was recommended by the Governor, the Governor can withhold assent,” he argued, presenting it as a hypothetical.
Salve also opposed any judicially imposed timelines on the Governor. “Article 200 does not set out a time limit under which the Governor has to set out his discretion—political process takes place behind the scheme, we achieve in 15 days but in some cases it takes 6 months. This can’t be sitting in ivory tower and taking decisions,” he said.
Emphasising the Governor’s constitutional link with the Union, Salve remarked, “Governor is appointed by the President and holds office virtually at his pleasure—in one sense he is the channel of communication between Union and State. It is hard to believe that when Union does not accept the Bill and Governor withholds, it would be hard to believe that Union has no role to play.”
Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Maninder Singh, representing Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan respectively, also supported the Union’s position.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
