CJI asks if elected Govts can be placed under Guv’s whims in withholding Bills

In the wake of Union Home Minister Amit Shah introducing a Bill that seeks to empower Governors with the discretion to remove ministers, including Chief Ministers, if they remain in jail for 30 days without conviction, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench, hearing a Presidential reference on the timelines for gubernatorial assent to Bills, asked whether elected governments can be placed at the whims and fancies of Governors by vesting them with the authority to withhold legislative proposals indefinitely.

The five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai considered the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the options available to Governors when state legislatures pass a Bill, and deliberated on whether the power to withhold assent could be exercised in a manner that causes a Bill to lapse effectively, The Indian Express reported.

The Bench noted that such a reading of the provision could prove counterproductive both to the constitutional role of the Governor and to the legislative process, as it would risk subordinating an elected government to unelected discretion.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, emphasised that the office of the Governor is not a ceremonial post but one that embodies the authority of the President, and argued that the discretionary power under Article 200 includes withholding assent without a fixed timeline.

He explained that withholding a Bill is not merely a temporary suspension but could result in the Bill failing to become law, citing previous judicial interpretations by larger Benches. However, he also acknowledged that the power is to be exercised rarely and sparingly, with an understanding of the federal balance between Union and state governments.

The Chief Justice questioned whether such an interpretation would allow a Governor to keep a Bill pending indefinitely without returning it to the legislature, thereby undermining the democratic mandate. The Bench remarked that the constitutional scheme does not appear to contemplate absolute discretion that permanently blocks legislative measures, and cautioned that such a reading could distort the federal equilibrium.

Justice P S Narasimha observed that the options available to a Governor should remain open-ended in a way that preserves the possibility of resolution through political processes rather than closing the matter at the first instance of withholding assent. He stressed that treating the initial withholding as final would be inconsistent with the spirit of democratic dialogue and the legislative framework, which is intended to facilitate reconsideration and negotiation.

The Solicitor General, while defending the constitutional position, maintained that Indian democracy has proven resilient in practice despite aberrations in the conduct of some individuals holding constitutional office, and argued that isolated controversies should not lead to the dilution of powers entrusted by the framers of the Constitution.

The Chief Justice, however, remarked that experience has shown how the discretionary authority of Governors has often led to litigation, though the Bench was careful not to base its interpretation on individual cases.