In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that a Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, cannot disrupt the ordinary course of lawmaking by State Legislatures by merely withholding assent to a bill. The court emphasized that if a Governor chooses to withhold assent, the bill must be returned to the legislature for reconsideration.
The court’s ruling addressed a crucial ambiguity in Article 200 of the Constitution, which does not explicitly specify the next steps after a Governor withholds assent to a bill. Article 200 provides three options for the Governor: granting assent, withholding assent, or reserving the bill for the President’s consideration. The proviso to Article 200 adds that if a Governor withholds assent, they may return the bill to the assembly with a message detailing aspects requiring reconsideration. If the assembly re-adopts the bill, with or without amendments, the Governor is then obligated to grant assent.
The judgment comes in response to a recent case in Tamil Nadu, where the Governor declared withholding assent without returning the bills to the assembly. The assembly, nonetheless, readopted the bills, leading to a legal challenge.
The Supreme Court clarified that the power to withhold assent must be read in conjunction with the proviso, ensuring that the Governor cannot derail the legislative process by simply declaring assent is withheld without further recourse. The court emphasized the need for the Governor, as the unelected Head of State, to adhere to the constitutional principles of a parliamentary democracy.
The court underscored that real power in a parliamentary democracy resides with elected representatives, and the Governor’s role is that of a symbolic head. The judgment reaffirmed that the Governor’s constitutional powers should not be misused to impede the legislative process.
In a specific case related to Punjab, where the Governor doubted the validity of the assembly session, the court highlighted that the Governor cannot doubt the validity of an assembly session and must decide on pending bills. The State of Punjab had approached the Supreme Court, invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, to address the Governor’s inaction.
This significant ruling reinforces the democratic principles underlying India’s governance and establishes clear guidelines for the Governor’s role in the legislative process.
