Supreme Court Questions Governors' Power to Withhold Assent on Bills

Supreme Court's Inquiry into Article 200

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court raised concerns regarding the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which permits governors to withhold assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The court questioned whether this could lead to an indefinite delay in the approval of even money bills, as reported by various news outlets.

A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, expressed that such an interpretation could be problematic, especially since money bills are typically required to be approved.

The bench is currently reviewing arguments related to a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the court's ruling from April 8, which established timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to legislative bills.

On July 22, the court issued a notice to the central and state governments regarding this reference.

During the hearing, the court inquired whether it would be expected to remain inactive if governors or the president delayed granting assent to bills for extended periods. The court posed a hypothetical scenario where a bill passed in 2020 might still be awaiting consent in 2025.

Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the Madhya Pradesh government, argued that such issues should be resolved by Parliament and cautioned against presuming misuse of the discretionary powers held by governors or the president.

Kaul stated that it is impractical to impose strict timelines for decisions on bills by governors or the president.

Harish Salve, representing the Maharashtra government, noted that the Constitution's framers intended for the Union government to have the authority to prevent state Assembly bills from becoming law, emphasizing the higher discretion involved.

Salve remarked that the language of Article 201 does not impose limitations on veto powers, asserting that the term 'veto' is a mischaracterization of the governor's authority to withhold assent.

Article 201 outlines the procedure when a governor reserves a state bill for presidential consideration.

Chief Justice Gavai questioned whether the Union government could exercise similar powers over bills that fall under the state list, to which Salve affirmed that it could.

The bench also explored the implications of a governor withholding a bill at the outset, including the potential to withhold a money bill.

Salve confirmed that a governor could indeed do so, but Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that this scenario is unlikely since money bills are introduced with the governor's recommendation under Article 207.

The court's April 8 ruling stemmed from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which highlighted that Governor RN Ravi had delayed action on several bills for over three years before rejecting them or forwarding some to the president.

The court concluded that governors are required to make decisions on bills within a reasonable timeframe and cannot indefinitely postpone action under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months as per Article 201, and any delays beyond this period must be justified and communicated to the state government. These provisions delineate the assent process for bills by governors and the president.

The ruling also introduced the concept of 'deemed assent' for cases of prolonged inaction, allowing bills to be considered approved if they remain pending for too long.

In May, President Murmu referred the matter to the court under Article 143(1) concerning the April 8 ruling, which allows the president to seek the court's opinion on significant legal and public matters.