SC says Centre’s endorsement of Governor’s power to withhold bill problematic
text_fields
The Supreme Court expressed reservations over the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution by the Union government that Governors have an independent power to withhold a Bill without returning it to the State Legislative Assembly, calling it problematic since such an interpretation can be invoked to withhold money bills, which Governors are otherwise bound to approve.
The observations came on Tuesday, 26 August, during the hearing of a Presidential reference on the issue of assent to bills, where a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar considered the scope of gubernatorial powers under the provision.
The Bench expressed concern that if the Union’s interpretation were to be accepted, Governors could block even money bills at the threshold, thereby creating a constitutional anomaly since money bills are required to be passed with the Governor’s recommendation.
The judges noted that Article 200 allows a Governor to return a Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, except in the case of a money bill, and said that the recognition of an independent power to withhold assent would make it possible for Governors to reject such bills outright.
They observed that this would undermine the constitutional scheme, which envisages a limited role for Governors in legislative processes and would allow them to override the will of elected Assemblies.
The Solicitor General argued that Article 207 prevents such a situation since money bills can only be introduced in a State legislature with the prior recommendation of the Governor, making the question of their withholding redundant. However, the Court noted that the interpretation advanced by the Union raised serious inconsistencies and could not be easily reconciled with the text and spirit of the constitutional provisions.
The matter arises from a 14-point reference sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on certain aspects of her powers. The reference is linked to the Court’s earlier landmark ruling in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case, where it held that Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to reserve ten bills for presidential assent was illegal and directed that timelines be followed under Article 201 when Governors reserve bills for the President’s consideration.
The Court had earlier asked whether elected State governments could be left at the mercy of Governors, who might frustrate the legislative process by indefinitely withholding assent.