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.
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.
