Introduction:
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court Judgement on Governor’s Power Under Article 200 has brought renewed clarity to the constitutional role of Governors in the legislative process. This judgment addresses concerns over delays and discretion exercised by Governors while assenting to bills passed by state legislatures. By interpreting Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle of accountability in a parliamentary democracy, setting a significant precedent for the relationship between the executive and the legislature at the state level.
In this blog post, we will explore the nuances of the Supreme Court’s ruling and its implications for federalism, governance, and the democratic process in India. By examining the context and significance of this landmark judgment, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of how the Governor’s power under Article 200 shapes the political landscape and the functioning of state governments across the country.
Context:
- Case Name: The state of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu
- In a significant ruling on the powers of a Governor, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 pending Bills,terming it illegal and erroneous in law.
- The Supreme court slammed T.N Governor R.N Ravi’s conduct as Unconstitutional.
Content:
- Key issues before the supreme court bench
- What is article 200?
- Salient aspects of this Judgement
- Previous rulings that have reined in the powers of the governor
- Grey Areas where the role of the Governor is likely to be Judicially scrutinized
- What happens now to similar cases by other states?
- Way Forward
Key Issues before the Supreme Court Bench
- Can Bills submitted to the Governor under Article 200 be kept pending without response for an indefinite period of time?
- Under Article 200, is the Governor obligated to resend a Bill to the Legislative Assembly with reasoning or can they simply say that they are withholding assent?
- When can the Governor send a re-passed Bill, which he has previously withheld assent from, to the President for assent?
- Has there has been a delay in the discharge exercising of constitutional functions in Tamil Nadu?
What is Article 200?
- Article 163 of the Constitution deals with the powers of the Governor generally.
- Article 200 specifically deals with the issue of granting assent to Bills.
- Both provisions are read together to determine the contours of the Governor’s power on this issue.
- When a Bill passed by the legislature of a state is presented to the Governor,the Governor has four options:
1. grant assent to the Bill;
2. withhold assent to the Bill;
3. return the Bill for reconsideration; or
4. reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
Note: The Article 200 has a key proviso: that the Governor “may, as soon as possible”, return Bills other than money Bills, with a message requesting that the house reconsider it in parts or in whole. If the Legislative House after reconsidering the Bill sends it to the Governor once again, the Governor “shall not withhold assent therefrom”. - The war between the Government and the Governor in opposition ruled states essentially lies in the proviso.
- While the Governor must return the Bill “as soon as possible”, no timeframe is specified.
- Raj Bhavans have exploited this ambiguity to sit on Bills indefinitely without returning them to the state legislature.
Salient aspects of this Judgement
- Governor has no veto under Article 200
- Whenever a bill is presented to the governor, he is under the constitutional obligation to adopt one of the 3 courses of action available.
- Further the expression as soon as possible must be seen with a sense of expediency.
- Governor cannot withhold assent in a summary manner.
- Top court fixes timelines for Governor:
- A Governor has a maximum of one month to withhold assent on the aid and advice of the State Cabinet.
- If he withholds assent contrary to the Cabinet’s advice, he has a maximum of three months to return the Bill with a message specifying his reasons.
- The Governor has three months to reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration against the advice of the State Cabinet.
- The Governor “must” grant assent to a Bill re-passed by the State Legislature under Article 200 within a maximum of one month.
- Can the Governor reserve a bill for the President’s consideration which was earlier rejected by him?
- Governor cannot reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration when the proposed law, which was earlier rejected by him, is presented for the second time by the State Legislature.
- Supreme Court observed that had the Governor wanted to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, he ought to have done it in the first instance itself.
- The decision of the Tamil Nadu Governor to push the Bill to the President was not “bona fide”.
- Use of Article 142
- The ruling is also significant because the court exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court declared the 10 Bills as having received assent given “the unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent.
Previous rulings that have reined in the powers of the governor.
- Shamsher Singh vs state of Punjab (1974)
- The Supreme Court stated that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as a rule and can only exercise discretionary powers as an exception.
- Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India Case (2006)
- The Court held that the individual opinion of the Governor cannot be a ground for imposing President’s Rule.
- Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker (2016)
- Supreme Court expressly said that the power to summon the house is not solely vested in the Governor.
- The state of Punjab vs Principal secretary to the Governor (2023)
- The Governor is a symbolic head and cannot with hold action on bills passed by the state legislature.
Grey Areas where the role of the Governor is likely to be Judicially scrutinized:
- The power to grant sanction for constitution against state government officials.
- The power to invite political parties to form a government.
What happens now to similar cases by other states?
- Kerala, in its plea, had argued that three Bills have been pending with (former) Governor Arif Mohammad Khan for more than two years, and three Bills for more than a year.
- Telangana has argued that more than 10 key Bills are pending with (former) Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan, and that seven of those Bills were passed by the Assembly and sent for the Governor’s assent in September 2022.
Way Forward
- Governor is a constitutional position and he must exercise his power in good faith and to uphold constitutionalism.
- Follow Punchhi commission advice i.e. Article 163 does not give the governor a general discretionary power to act against or without the advice of his council of ministers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Governor’s power under Article 200 significantly interprets constitutional authority and federalism in India. By defining the limits of the Governor’s discretion in the legislative process, the Court reinforces democratic governance and ensures that gubernatorial powers align with the Constitution. This ruling upholds the integrity of legislative assembly decisions and highlights the importance of accountability and transparency in executive actions. Ultimately, it serves as a vital reminder of the balance between state and central authority, promoting political stability and democratic integrity in the country.
Join Our Telegram Channel : UPSC With Deepak Prakash
