On April 8, a Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified the scope of power that lies with a state’s Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution in granting assent to the bills passed by the State legislature.
The apex court passed the judgment in a petition which challenged Tamil Nadu Governor, RN Ravi’s, decision to withhold his assent for 10 bills re-enacted by the State Legislature and subsequently reserving it for the consideration of the President. It found the decision "illegal and erroneous". The apex court through its judgment made it clear that there is no concept of "absolute veto" or "pocket veto" under the Constitutional scheme.
The court also held that the Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the assent of the President once it has been re-enacted by the State Legislative Assembly after the Governor had withheld his assent in the first instance.
Governors don’t have unlimited discretionary powers
The bench held in its judgment that as a general rule, it is not open for the Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President once it was presented before him in the second round after having been returned to the House previously as per the first proviso(of Article 200).
The use of the expression 'shall not withhold assent thereof' appearing in the first proviso places a clear embargo on the Governor and an unambiguous enunciation on the requirement that the Governor must accept the Bills which are presented to him after complying with the provisions laid down in the first proviso.
The court also laid the timeframe for granting assent to the bill which is as follows:
1. In case of withholding assent and reserving it for the President with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the time limit will be a maximum of one month
2. If the Governor withholds the assent without aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the bill has to be returned within three months.
3. In case the bill is again sent to the Governor after being reconsidered by the state assembly, the Governor has to give assent within one month.
Article 200 of the Constitution
When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State it is presented to the Governor for assent before it becomes a law. The Governor then has three options : (1) he gives his assent to the Bill (2) he withholds assent (3) he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President.
According to noted jurist DD Basu "in one case reservation is compulsory, viz, where the law in question would derogate from the powers of the high court under the Constitution."
“As soon as possible” means just that
What happens to the bill reserved for the consideration of the President is explained in Article 201. It states, "Provided that, where the Bill is not a Money Bill, the President may direct the Governor to return the Bill to the House or, as the case may be, the Houses of the Legislature of the State together with such a message as is mentioned in the first proviso to article 200 and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider it accordingly within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such message and, if it is again passed by the House or Houses with or without amendment, it shall be presented again to the President for his consideration."
It is important to note that there is no time limit prescribed for the Governor to either give assent, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President. However, the Supreme Court in its judgment made it clear that the use of the expression "as soon as possible" in Article 200 makes it clear that the decision must be taken expeditiously.
Expert bodies had recommended deadlines
In the context of the time limit in granting assent to bills, the Commission on Centre-State Relations headed by Justice MM Punchhi made two important remarks.
1) States have expressed concern that Bills so submitted sometimes are indefinitely retained at the Central level even beyond the life of the State Legislature. Allowing the democratic will of the State Legislature to be thwarted by Executive fiat is questionable in the context of 'basic features' of the Constitution. Therefore the President should be able to decide consenting or withholding consent in reasonable time to be communicated to the State. In the Commission's view, the period of six months prescribed in Article 201 for State Legislature to act when the Bill is returned by the President can be made applicable for the President also to decide on assenting or withholding assent to a Bill reserved for consideration of the President.
2) If the President, for any reason, is unable to give his assent, it may be desirable for the President to make a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 for an opinion before finally making up his mind on the issue. This will avoid allegations of bias while securing the dignity and authority of the House. Again this can be accomplished as a matter of practice or convention rather than through amendment of amendment of the Constitution.
Now, the Supreme Court, through its judgment, has set up a time limit for the Governor to give his assent to the bills passed by the State Legislature and made it clear that there is no concept of pocket veto or absolute veto with the Governor. So, it can be hoped that arbitrariness in the Governor's action in assenting to bills will be reduced.
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!
