Governors cannot Indefinitely hold back Bills, The Hindu Editorial Analysis

Table of Contents

The Hindu Editorial Analysis: The Editorial Analysis of The Hindu Newspaper Editorial Articles aimed at simplifying various concepts relevant to the UPSC and other State PSC Exams. The Editorial Analysis helps in expanding the knowledge base as well as framing better quality mains answers. Today’s Hindu Editorial Analysis of ‘Governors cannot Indefinitely hold back Bills’ discusses the role of governor in deciding on the legislations passed by the state legislature and how long he could avoid signing the concerned legislation.

Governor’s Assent on Bills in News

In recent times, conflicts have emerged in several States between Chief Ministers and Governors regarding the approval of Bills. Chief Ministers express concern that Governors have been delaying their assent to Bills beyond a reasonable timeframe. This situation poses a challenge for parliamentary democracies, where the public elects a government to enact laws that represent their collective aspirations. When an elected government faces obstacles in the legislative process, it can potentially undermine the functioning of parliamentary democracy.

Governor’s Role in a State

The State Legislature consists of the Governor, the Legislative Assembly (if the State has a single House), and the Legislative Council (if the State has two Houses).

The Governor operates with limited autonomy as it is firmly established in legal terms that they can act solely based on the “advice” of their Council of Ministers, led by the Chief Minister.
The framers of the Constitution intended for the President or Governor to act exclusively upon the advice of the Council of Ministers.
The practical governance of the country or State is carried out by the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, depending on the context.

Discretionary Powers of Governor

There are specific situations in which a Governor can exercise discretionary powers separate from the Council of Ministers. The presence or absence of such discretion holds significance because, according to Article 163(2) of the Constitution, decisions made by the Governor in these matters are immune from challenge. In the case of Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court established that a President or Governor can exercise discretion independent of their Ministers only if the Constitution explicitly allows them to do so.

Procedure for Governor’s Assent to a Bill

According to Article 200 of the Constitution, when a Bill is presented to the Governor, they have three options: To provide their assent, Withhold it, or Return the Bill with certain suggestions.

The first proviso of the Article states that if the Bill is not a Money Bill, the Governor can promptly return it with a message, requesting the reconsideration of the Bill as a whole or in part.
The legislative House then has a period of six months to decide whether or not to accept this request.
Once the House returns the Bill to the Governor, they are obligated to provide their assent, regardless of whether their recommendations have been accepted or not.
The second proviso of the Article grants the Governor discretion to refer a Bill to the President if they believe that its passage would curtail the powers of the High Court.
The procedure to be followed when presidential assent is required for such a Bill is outlined in Article 201 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Judgements on Governor’s Autonomy

The discretion granted to the Governor does not allow for an indefinite withholding of assent to a Bill, as it would lead to a breakdown of the constitutional framework. The extent to which the Governor’s autonomy is acknowledged under the Constitution can be observed through various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court.

Purushothaman Nambudiri v State of Kerala Judgement

In the case of Purushothaman Nambudiri v State of Kerala, the Supreme Court deliberated on whether a Bill awaiting the Governor’s assent would become invalid upon the dissolution of the House. After examining the provisions of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, the Court concluded that the Bill would not lapse. The Court emphasized that unlike the six-month timeframe given to the House for deliberating on the Governor’s or President’s recommendations, there is no specific time limit prescribed for the Governor or President to provide their assent. This implies that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for a Bill pending the Governor’s assent to be at risk of lapsing in the event of House dissolution.

Shamsher Singh Judgement of SC

While the Constitution does not explicitly specify a time limit, the first proviso of Article 200 does indicate that the Governor should either provide assent or return the Bill to the House promptly. In the case of Shamsher Singh, the Supreme Court determined, albeit indirectly, that it is only in relation to the second proviso that the Governor exercises discretion independent of the Council of Ministers.

The Court concluded that the Governor’s power to reserve Bills for the President’s consideration is one such discretionary power.
Additionally, the Court emphasized the exceptional circumstances under which the Governor can act independently of the Council of Ministers.
It cited de Smith’s statement on royal assent, which holds true even in the context of Indian democracy for both Presidents and Governors.
The statement highlights that refusal of royal assent based on strong disapproval or intense controversy surrounding a bill would be unconstitutional.

‘Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Dy. Speaker’ Case

In the case of Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Dy. Speaker, the Supreme Court determined that under Article 200, the Governor exercises discretion solely in deciding whether a Bill should be reserved for the President’s consideration or not.

This holds significance because the Court has also established that Article 163(2) must be interpreted in conjunction with Article 163(1), implying that only those matters explicitly allowing the Governor to act independently are immune from being challenged in a court of law.
The judgment in Nabam Rebia has been referred to a larger bench of the Court to address the question of whether a Speaker is prohibited from proceeding with matters under Schedule X while a motion for their removal is pending before the House.

Conclusion

The Governor does not possess the authority to indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill. Upon receiving a Bill, the Governor is required to either return it with recommendations or provide assent promptly. In cases where a Bill diminishes the power of the High Court, the Governor has the discretion to refer it for the President’s consideration. Failure to act on a Bill would be a violation of the Constitution, and the Governor’s actions or inactions in this matter would be subject to judicial review.