None too soon: On Governor’s and the judiciary’s reminder on Bills

Source: The post is based on the article “None too soon: On Governor’s and the judiciary’s reminder on Bills” published in The Hindu on 29th April 2023.

Syllabus: GS-2: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.

Relevance: About the challenges associated with the power of the governor.

News: The Supreme Court has reminded Governors that the Constitution expects that a decision to return a Bill to the State Assembly for reconsideration should be made “as soon as possible”.

About the case

The Telangana Governor’s apparent inaction on several Bills made the State to approach the Court.

In the meantime, the Bills have been cleared by the Governor. Based on this, the Court disposed of the petition. But kept open questions that arose from the issue for consideration in an appropriate case.

About the SC’s remarks on the governor’s power to return a Bill

The expression ‘as soon as possible’ contains significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities.

This effectively means it would be constitutionally impermissible for Governors to hold on to Bills indefinitely without communicating their decision to the House.

The Court’s observation addresses the issue of delay, but it does not address the issue in granting assent.

What are the concerns associated with the powers of the Governor in India?

Note: The Governor have the discretionary power to withhold assent or return a Bill for reconsideration. In the Constituent Assembly, it was explicitly clarified that returning a Bill was to be done only on advice.

-There are three clear problems associated with Article 200, which deals with assent to Bills. Such as a) there is an absence of a time limit for acting on Bills, b) The scope for reserving a Bill for the President’s consideration against the advice of the Cabinet and c) The claim that the Governor can kill any Bill by declining assent.

–Article 163 (Discretionary power) evades the primary rule that the Governors function on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Cabinet. Further, there is also a clause that prohibits any inquiry into whether a particular matter fell within their discretion or not.

These provisions give abundant scope for conflict between the government and Governor’s office.

What should be done?

These rules should be changed, either by amending the Constitution or through an appropriate Supreme Court verdict. So that misuse of discretion can be kept in check.