The Supreme Court of India has recently delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the powers and responsibilities of Governors regarding bills presented by a State legislature under Article 200 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that the President’s actions under Article 201 are subject to judicial review. It clarified that while the Governor’s limited discretion is not politically driven, the President’s role under Article 201 carries a political aspect, as the President has the prerogative to determine whether granting assent to certain bills is appropriate.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan clarified the scope and limitations of the President of India's powers under Article 201 of the Constitution, providing a detailed interpretation of the constitutional framework.
The bench stated, “The Governor can only return the bill when he has withheld the assent. The Governor cannot be expected to keep the bill in his custody after withholding the assent as it would amount to a “pocket veto” or veto which is contrary to the intention of the makers of the Constitution. Any acceptance of such “suspended animation” doctrine of a Bill, supposedly kept indefinitely pending by a Governor, would be grossly violative of the Constitutional text, spirit and intent.”
The Court also added, "In cases where the reservation is on the ground of repugnancy of the State legislation with a Central legislation, or under one of the provisions where the assent of President has been envisaged for the purpose of enforceability or imparting immunity to the legislation, it would be a matter where the President would decide the question of grant of assent keeping in mind the desirability of having a uniformity in the policy across the country on the subject matter involved.”
The Supreme Court clarified that when a bill is reserved due to concerns about its constitutional validity, the executive must not act as the judiciary by assessing the bill's legality. Instead, such matters should, as a standard practice, be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143 for its opinion.
"we find it apposite to observe that constitutional authorities occupying high offices must be guided by the values of the Constitution. These values that are so cherished by the people of India are a result of years of struggle and sacrifice of our forefathers. When called upon to take decisions, such authorities must not give in to ephemeral political considerations but rather be guided by the spirit that underlies the Constitution. They must look within and reflect whether their actions are informed by their constitutional oath and if the course of action adopted by them furthers the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. If the authorities attempt to deliberately bypass the constitutional mandate, they are tinkering with the very ideals revered by its people upon which this country has been built.” the court added.
Read Here: