- 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 the provisions are read together to determine the contours of the power the Governor holds on this issue.
Contents show
When a Bill passed by the legislature of a state is presented to the Governor, the Governor has four options:
- grant assent to the Bill;
- withhold assent to the Bills;
- return the Bills for reconsideration; or
- Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
Article 200 states that:
- When a State Legislative Assembly passes a bill, or in a State with a Legislative Council, when both houses of the legislature pass the bill, the bill is then presented to the Governor.
- The Governor has three options: to approve the bill (assent), reject the bill (withhold assent), or hold off on a decision and refer the bill to the President for consideration.
- However, the Article has a key proviso. It says 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.
- However, once the Legislative House reconsiders the Bill and sends it to the Governor once again, the Governor “shall not withhold assent therefrom”.
Bone of contention
- The tug-of-war between the government and the Governor in the Opposition-ruled states essentially lies in the wordplay in the proviso.
- The proviso says the Governor must return the Bill “as soon as possible” but does not prescribe a specific timeframe.
- Raj Bhavans have exploited this ambiguity to sit on Bills indefinitely without returning them to the state legislature.
Can a Governor in practice actually sit on a Bill forever?
- An indefinite timeline in deciding on Bills can in effect amount to paralysing the elected government.
- At the same time, giving assent to Bills is one of the few areas in which the Governor can exercise his discretion.
- But this discretion cannot be used arbitrarily or based on a personal preference, but only in Constitutional terms with cogent reasons.
- Additionally, Article 200 uses the word “shall” which indicates that the framers of the Constitution intended a mandatory tone for the Governor on this aspect.
View of SC
- The SC in its landmark 2016 ruling in the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly case (Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker) discussed this aspect briefly.
- It said that the Governor cannot withhold assent to a Bill indefinitely but must return it to the Assembly with a message and this could include his recommendation for amendments to the Bill.