Role of Governor Over Assenting Bills

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• Recently, the Supreme Court questioned the Tamil Nadu Governor over his decision to keep several Bills pending for over three years.

About

• The Governor, as the constitutional head of a state, plays a crucial role in the legislative process, particularly in assenting to bills passed by the state legislature.
• The discretion exercised by Governors in withholding or delaying assent has been a subject of legal scrutiny and political contention.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 200 of the Indian Constitution: It outlines the Governor’s role in the assent process.
  • When a bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, they have four options:
    • Grant Assent – The Governor may approve the bill, making it a law.
    • Withhold Assent – The Governor may reject the bill, effectively stopping it from becoming law.
    • Return the Bill for Reconsideration – The Governor can send the bill back to the legislature with suggestions. However, if the legislature passes the bill again without modifications, the Governor is bound to give assent.
    • Reserve the Bill for Presidential Assent – If the bill is contrary to the Constitution, affects the powers of the High Court, or contradicts central laws, the Governor may reserve it for the President’s decision.
• Article 201: President’s Role in Reserved Bills
  • If a bill is reserved for the president’s consideration under Article 200, the President has two options:
    • Give Assent: The bill becomes law.
    • Withhold Assent or Direct Reconsideration: The President may send the bill back to the State Legislature for reconsideration. If the Legislature re-passes the bill, the President is not bound to give assent.

Controversies and Recent Developments

• Delays in Assent: While the Constitution does not specify a timeframe for the Governor to act on a bill, it mandates that actions should be taken ‘as soon as possible’.
  • Indefinite delays can lead to a constitutional impasse, undermining the democratic process.
• Instances of prolonged delays and the use of the ‘pocket veto’ (withholding assent without returning the bill) have raised concerns about the Governor’s impartiality and adherence to constitutional norms.
• Political Disputes: Some state governments have accused Governors of acting under the influence of the central government, undermining the principles of federalism.
  • In states like West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Punjab, conflicts have arisen over the Governor’s refusal to sign bills crucial for governance.

Supreme Court Observations/Interpretations

• Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in certain specified cases.
• Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): Governor cannot act in a partisan manner or override the elected government’s decisions without valid reasons.
• Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006): Governor’s discretion should not be arbitrary and must align with constitutional principles.

Discretionary Powers

• The Governor’s discretion in withholding assent or returning a bill is not absolute.
• The Sarkaria Commission (1987) further emphasized that the reservation of bills for the President’s consideration should be an exception and not the norm.
  • It recommended that the President should decide on such bills within six months and communicate reasons if assent is withheld.

Reforms and the Way Forward

• Time-bound decision-making: The Supreme Court has hinted that Governors should not indefinitely delay assent.
  • The Governor should communicate promptly with the state legislature, providing reasons for withholding assent or referring bills to the President.
• Clarification on discretionary powers: A clearer constitutional or judicial framework is needed to define the limits of the Governor’s role.
  • Establishing clear guidelines for the Governor’s actions in assenting bills can help ensure transparency and accountability.
• Greater accountability: The Governor’s actions should be subject to parliamentary or judicial review if they appear to be politically motivated.
  • Strengthening judicial oversight can help prevent misuse of the Governor’s powers and ensure adherence to constitutional principles.

Source: TH