Governors cannot indefinitely hold back Bills

Source– The post is based on the article “Governors cannot indefinitely hold back Bills” published in “The Hindu” on 12th June 2023.

Syllabus: GS2- Issues and Challenges Pertaining to the Federal Structure

Relevance- Issues related to Governor power

News- Recently issues have arisen in various States between Chief Ministers and Governors, with regard to the passing of Bills. Chief Ministers feel that Governors have not acted for long period of time on Bills presented for their assent.

What is the constitutional position of the Governor?

The Legislature of a State comprises the Governor and the Legislative Assembly and a Legislative Council. The Governor has little autonomy in his functioning.

He can act only on the “advice” of his Council of Ministers, with the Chief Minister as the head of the Council.

However, the Governor can exercise his discretion independent of the Council of Ministers in some cases. As per Article 163(2) of the Constitution, this decision of the Governor on discretion of his cannot be challenged.

In Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court held that a President or a Governor can exercise their discretion independent of their Ministers only where the Constitution expressly permits them.

What is Governor power with respect to bills passed by the assembly?

Article 200 states that the Governor can either give his assent or withhold it or return the Bill with certain suggestions.

The Governor may return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill for reconsidering the Bill. The House has six months to decide whether or not to accept this request.

Once the House returns the Bill to the Governor, he must give his assent whether or not his recommendations have been accepted.

The Governor has discretion to refer a Bill to the President, if it takes away the powers of the High Court.

Does the Governor have discretion to indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill?

In Purushothaman Nambudiri v State of Kerala, SC held that a Bill pending the Governor’s assent would not lapse upon the dissolution of the House.

It held that since there is no time limit prescribed under Articles 200 and 201 for the Governor or the President to give their assent. Framers of the Constitution did not want a Bill pending assent from the Governor to lapse on dissolution of the House.

In Shamsher Singh case, the Court held that it is only with respect to the reserving the bill for Presidential assent that the Governor exercises discretion independent of the Council.

In the Nabam Rebia case, the Court also held that the Governor exercises discretion only with regard to reservation of the bill for consideration of the President.

The Governor has no discretion to indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill. Refusing to act on a Bill is in violation of the Constitution. Governor’s action or inaction in this regard is subjected to judicial review.