The Indian constitution delineates a remarkable role for the Governor in the legislative process. The Governor’s powers over state bills are consistently examined and scrutinized by the legislative assemblies, the Supreme Court and laymen alike. Consequently, it becomes imperative to comprehend these powers, their implications and the recent spurs surrounding them in the country.
Governor’s Powers over State Bills
Drawing from the robust provisions of the Indian constitution, the Governor has noteworthy control over State Bills. Articles 200 and 201 provide the blueprint for this compelling authority. Article 200 outlines that a Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State can be presented to the Governor for assent. The Governor may give or withhold assent or reserve the Bill for consideration by the President. Article 201 propounds that the President can assent to or withhold assent from the Bill that is reserved for his consideration and may also direct the Governor to return the Bill to the Legislature of the State for reconsideration.
The Governor also has some multifaceted options when dealing with a Bill. He can grant assent, return it to the Assembly for reconsideration of certain provisions or reserve it for the President’s consideration. However, withholding assent is not commonly practiced due to its unpopularity.
Supreme Court’s Observation on Gubernatorial Procrastination
The Supreme Court recently ordered that Governors should expedite the assent process for bills after they have been passed by legislative assemblies. The court stressed the constitutional significance of the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200, thereby discouraging Gubernatorial procrastination.
Instances of Gubernatorial Procrastination
In Tamil Nadu, the state assembly passed a resolution urging the President to establish a timeline for giving assent to Bills. The TN Governor forwarded the NEET exemption Bill to the President after considerable delay. Meanwhile, in Kerala, the Governor announced his refusal to assent to the Lokayukta Amendment Bill and the Kerala University Amendment Bill.
Legal Arguments against Delaying Assent
The Governor’s inaction can hinder the functioning of the state government, thereby violating the Constitution. Under such circumstances, the government can invoke Article 355 to notify the President for appropriate instructions to ensure that the process of government aligns with the Constitution. Moreover, Article 361 provides the Governor with complete immunity from court proceedings, presenting a unique challenge when the government wishes to contest their decision to withhold assent. The Supreme Court clarified that this immunity does not negate the court’s power, allowing it to scrutinize the Governor’s actions, including mala fides.
Overview of Practices in Other Countries
In the United Kingdom, the practice of requiring royal assent for a Bill exists but refusal on controversial grounds is considered unconstitutional. The United States allows the President to refuse assent, but if both Houses pass it again with a two-thirds majority, the Bill becomes law.
Way Forward
The phenomenon of Gubernatorial Procrastination has emerged as a new challenge within the constitutional framework. The framers of the Constitution did not foresee Governors stalling Bills indefinitely. Therefore, it is crucial for the Supreme Court to establish a reasonable timeframe for Governors to decide on a Bill, fostering federalism in the country.
