Context:

• This article is based on the news “Governors vs State governments: Supreme Court calls for introspection” Which was published in the Business Standard. The Supreme Court (SC), said State governors must not be oblivious that they are not elected representatives of the people.

States in Supreme Court – Governors’ Delay in Bills 

• Supreme Court’s concern over Governor’s inaction: The SC voiced concern over Governors not acting on bills passed by state legislatures and directed the Solicitor General (SG) to place on record the details of action taken by the Punjab Governor on the bills cleared by the assembly.
• Unnecessary Litigation: The SG told the bench that the Governor has taken action on the bills placed before him and that the plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in the state is an unnecessary litigation.
• Recently, Kerala and Tamilnadu State governments have also moved the SC seeking that it instructs Governors that they cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills that a state Assembly has passed.

What is a Case in the Supreme Court? 

• The Punjab government had moved the SC over an alleged delay in the Governor giving assent to bills passed by the state assembly. The governor had said he withheld his approval to three money bills.
  • (Punjab Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Punjab Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2023).
• Reason given by Governor: The governor had said the October 20-21 session, which was projected as an extension of the budget session, was “bound to be illegal” and any business conducted during it “unlawful”.
• Other Bills waiting Assent: The Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Punjab Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Amendment Bill, 2023 are awaiting the governor’s assent. 
  • These bills were passed during the June 19-20 session of the Punjab Assembly, which the governor had termed “patently illegal”.

Governor’s Power over State Bills

• Article 200 of the Constitution gives three options to the governor when a Bill is presented to him after a state legislative Assembly (and the legislative council wherever existent) passes it. 
  • Assent: The Governor can assent to the Bill, making it a law.
  • Withhold Assent: The Governor can withhold assent, preventing the Bill from becoming a law.
  • Reserve for President’s Consideration: The Governor can reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President if it affects the powers of the High Court.
• Return for Reconsideration: If the Bill is not a Money Bill, the Governor can return it to the legislature for reconsideration.
• The governor has to assent to the Bill even if the Assembly passes the Bill again without accepting any of the governor’s suggestions. 
• The governor can refer a Bill to the President if the Bill encroaches upon any rights of the High Court or, in the governor’s discretion, a subject in the Concurrent list.
• The withholding of the assent option is not normally done by any Governor because it would be an extremely unpopular action.
• The fact that the Constitution does not mention the grounds on which a Governor may withhold assent to a Bill shows that this power should be exercised by the Governor extremely sparingly and after very careful consideration of the consequences of such action.

Also Read: State Bills and the Veto Power of the Governor 

What are the Legal Arguments against Delaying Assent?

• States Constitutional Obligation: 
  • The legislature reflects the will of the people and is the constitutionally designated body to make laws with respect to subjects mentioned in the ‘State list’.
  • However, sitting on a Bill passed by the Assembly is not an option given by the Constitution. By doing so, a governor is acting against the constitutional direction.
• SC Ruling: Recently, SC in The State Of Telangana Versus Governor For The State Of Telangana & Anr held that the first provision to ‘Article 200’ states that the Governor may “as soon as possible after the presentation” of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the State Legislature. 
  • The expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities.
• Practice Followed in Other Countries: The refusal of assent is a practice which is not followed in other democratic countries. In some contexts, it is unconstitutional or the Constitution itself provides a remedy so that the Bill passed by the legislature could become law even after the refusal of assent.

Way Forward

• Clarification of Reasonable Time Limit: The SC has observed that the Governor should not unduly delay in granting or withholding assent. A clear definition of a “reasonable time limit” would provide more transparency and predictability in the process.
  • Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, in his 2020 judgment in the Keisham Megha Chandra Singh case, said a ‘reasonable time’ would mean three months.
• Doctrine of Neutrality: Through its various judgments, the Supreme Court has highlighted the need for authorities like the Speaker and Governor to be faithful to the doctrine of neutrality and not vacillate under “prevailing political pressures” thus maintaining Political Neutrality.
  • Governor as impartial constitutional head of state ensuring that the legislature functions effectively and that the Bills passed are in consonance with the Constitution.
• Judicial Review: The judiciary should continue to play an active role in reviewing the Governor’s actions and ensuring that the power to withhold assent is not misused.
• Cooperation and Consultations: The Governor should actively engage in consultation and dialogue with the Chief Minister and the legislature before taking any decision regarding assent or reservation of Bills. This would foster better understanding and cooperation between the executive and the legislature.
  • The 1988 Sarkaria Commission report on Centre-State relations had suggested consultation with the Governor while drafting the Bill and fixing a deadline for its disposal.

Conclusion:

The SC needs to safeguard the balance of power between the state legislature and the Governors. All constitutional authorities are required to act in a reasonable manner. Unreasonable acts are unsustainable in law.