Governor’s Role in Indian Legislative Assent Powers

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified the Governor’s discretionary powers concerning Bills passed by State Legislatures under Article 200 of the Constitution. This judgement followed a Presidential reference seeking advice on the Governor’s role in assenting to, withholding, or reserving Bills for the President’s consideration. The ruling deepens understanding of gubernatorial functions and their constitutional limits.

Context of the Supreme Court Opinion

The Court addressed 11 of 14 questions posed by the President about the Governor’s discretion on Bills. The main issues were whether the Governor has discretionary power in giving assent, withholding assent, or reserving Bills and the time frame for such decisions. The Court held that the Governor does have discretion in these matters but no fixed time limit applies. Judicial review is limited to cases of unreasonable or indefinite delay.

Historical and Constitutional Background

Under the Government of India Act 1935, both Governors and Governor-Generals had discretion in assenting to Bills. The Constituent Assembly debated and removed explicit references to discretion and single-house legislatures from Article 200. The Court noted that before the anti-defection law (1985), Bills could pass without Council of Ministers’ support. Post-1985, party discipline restricts such scenarios, limiting the Governor’s discretion in practice.

Discretion and Political Changes

The Court’s view does not fully consider coalition dynamics where political alliances shift after a Bill passes. A new government might advise the Governor to return a Bill for reconsideration. This possibility was noted by constitutional advisor B.N. Rau. Thus, discretion may not be implied but arises from political realities and aid and advice given by the Council of Ministers.

Governor’s Aid and Advice

The Court considered if the Governor must follow unconstitutional advice from the Council of Ministers. It questioned why ministers would advise against the Constitution given their oath. It also noted that the Governor can report to the Union under Article 356 without ministerial advice. The President’s discretionary powers when receiving such advice remain a critical factor.

Commissions and Recommendations on Governor’s Role

The Sarkaria, Venkatachaliah, and Punchhi Commissions recommended reforms in the appointment and powers of Governors. These suggestions remain largely unimplemented. The role of Governors has often been politicised, with appointments used as rewards or consolation prizes, leading to friction between Union and State governments.

Delays in Assent and Judicial Intervention

Delays in assenting to Bills have caused governance issues. For example, Karnataka had numerous Bills pending presidential assent for years. The Commissions recommended timelines to prevent such delays. The Court’s ruling leaves discretion non-justiciable and without fixed timelines, raising questions about future governance smoothness.

Implications for Centre-State Relations

The ruling’s broad discretionary scope may encourage gubernatorial governance, potentially affecting federal balance. Without clear timelines or judicial oversight, Governors’ actions could cause political tensions. The need for consensus on amending Article 200 and clarifying timelines remains crucial for cooperative federalism.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Discuss the role of the Governor in Indian federalism and how discretionary powers impact Centre-State relations.
2. Critically examine the significance of the anti-defection law in shaping legislative processes and party discipline in India.
3. Explain the importance of judicial review in maintaining constitutional balance between different branches of government with examples from Indian polity.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the challenges in implementing recommendations of commissions like Sarkaria and Punchhi on Centre-State relations and governance reforms.

Answer Hints:

1. Discuss the role of the Governor in Indian federalism and how discretionary powers impact Centre-State relations.

1. The Governor acts as the constitutional head of the State, appointed by the President (Union Government).
2. Discretionary powers include assenting to, withholding, or reserving Bills for the President’s consideration under Article 200.
3. Discretion without judicially enforceable timelines may cause delays and political friction between Centre and State.
4. Governors often act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, but discretionary actions can lead to Centre’s influence in State affairs.
5. Political appointments of Governors can exacerbate Centre-State tensions, especially when different parties rule State and Centre.
6. Commissions like Sarkaria recommended reforms to depoliticize Governor’s role, but these remain largely unimplemented, affecting federal balance.

2. Critically examine the significance of the anti-defection law in shaping legislative processes and party discipline in India.

1. Anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule, 1985) curbs legislators from acting against party whip, ensuring party discipline.
2. It reduces the possibility of Bills passing without Council of Ministers’ support, limiting Governor’s discretion in withholding assent.
3. Strengthens stability in government by preventing opportunistic defections and horse-trading.
4. May restrict individual legislator’s freedom, impacting dissent and internal democracy within parties.
5. Has changed political dynamics, making coalition politics complex but more stable in legislative decision-making.
6. Its effectiveness is debated due to loopholes and political engineering in party alliances and splits.

3. Explain the importance of judicial review in maintaining constitutional balance between different branches of government with examples from Indian polity.

1. Judicial review ensures executive and legislative actions conform to the Constitution, maintaining rule of law.
2. In the Governor’s assent to Bills, courts intervene only in cases of unreasonable or indefinite delay, limiting arbitrary use of discretion.
3. Examples – Supreme Court’s review in Tamil Nadu Governor case to clarify discretionary powers and time limits.
4. Judicial review acts as a check on misuse of power, preserving federalism and democratic governance.
5. However, certain discretionary powers, if made non-justiciable, may weaken constitutional checks and balances.
6. Judicial intervention in Centre-State disputes (Article 356 misuse) upholds constitutional morality and federal harmony.

4. With suitable examples, discuss the challenges in implementing recommendations of commissions like Sarkaria and Punchhi on Centre-State relations and governance reforms.

1. Commissions recommended transparent, depoliticized appointment of Governors and clear timelines for assent to Bills.
2. Recommendations remain largely ignored due to political unwillingness and vested interests at Centre and States.
3. Persistent politicization of Governor’s post leads to friction, undermining cooperative federalism.
4. Delay in assent to Bills (e.g., Karnataka’s multiple pending Bills for years) marks governance inefficiencies.
5. Lack of consensus on amending Article 200 to include timelines shows difficulty in constitutional reforms.
6. Changing political equations and rivalry between Centre and States impede implementation of reforms.