Why is it in the News?

CJI Chandrachud creatively interprets Article 200 in a landmark ruling on the Governor's role in bill assent, State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary, November 10, 2023.

Context:

• On November 10, 2023, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) delivered a significant judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, offering an interpretation of Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.
• The focal point was the first provision of Article 200, addressing a Governor's choices when presented with a Bill for assent following its passage by the State Legislature.

Article 200 Of The Indian Constitution:

• Article 200 of the Indian Constitution delineates four possible actions for a Governor when a legislature-passed Bill is submitted for assent.
• These actions include:
  • Give his assent
  • Withhold his assent
  • Return the bill for reconsideration
  • Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration (In instances where the bill introduced in the state legislature endangers the position of the state High Court.)
• If the legislature reapproves the Bill with or wthout any amendment, the Governor must grant assent.
• Alternatively, the Governor may reserve the Bill for the President's consideration, and the President then decides whether to grant or withhold assent under Article 201.
  • Notably, no specific timeframe is specified for the President's decision on the Bill.

Perspectives on the Discretionary and Absolute Nature of the Governor's Power:

• Most of the commentators of the Constitution, like D.D. Basu and others, have held the view that the Governor’s power to withhold assent under this Article has a finality about it, and once assent is withheld, the Bill dies a natural death.
• They were also of the view that the option of sending the Bill back to the Assembly for reconsideration under the first proviso is discretionary and not mandatory.

Interpretation of Article 200 Pronounced by the CJI:

• The recent interpretation of Article 200 by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) introduces a distinct viewpoint.
• Unlike the traditional understanding, the CJI associates the act of withholding assent with mandatory reconsideration.
• This interpretation challenges the presumption of the Governor's absolute authority to withhold assent.
• According to the CJI's judgment, the Governor's decision to withhold assent is coupled with the obligation to promptly return the Bill to the Assembly for an immediate reevaluation.
• In this context, the judgment asserts that, once the Governor chooses to withhold assent, the sole recourse is to send the Bill back to the Assembly for swift reconsideration, leaving the Governor with no alternative but to eventually grant assent.
• This nuanced interpretation aligns with the imperative of ensuring a deliberate and obligatory reconsideration process when the Governor opts to withhold assent to a legislative Bill.

The Importance of the CJI’s Interpretation:

• Preserving Legislative Rights: This ruling, coupled with the Chief Justice of India's approach, safeguards the legislature's authority in the law-making process, preventing potential misuse by appointed Governors and upholding the constitutional system.
• Evolution in Understanding Governor’s Powers: The CJI's interpretation signifies a progression in comprehending the Governor's powers, underlining the necessity for continual assessment and refinement of constitutional interpretations.
• Enhanced Clarity in Article 200: The Supreme Court of India has unequivocally stated that Governors cannot delay the decision on the Bills.
  • Consequently, the top court's verdict has brought increased clarity to Article 200, compelling Governors to promptly decide on presented Bills.

Issues Still Regarding the Governor's Power:

• Reservation of Bills for President's Consideration: A potential area for exploitation by Governors remains in reserving Bills for the President's consideration, providing an absolute option.
  • The critical query pertains to the types of Bills Governors can forward to the President, with the second provision of Article 200 specifying Bills that must mandatorily be reserved.
  • These are Bills that deviate from the powers of the High Court, jeopardizing its constitutionally designated role.
• Lack of Categorization for Bills: The Constitution lacks a reference to specific categories of Bills for the President's consideration.
  • Consequently, Governors may seemingly exercise discretion in sending any Bill to the President.
  • Recent instances, such as in Kerala, where the Governor withheld action on eight Bills for over two years, or in Tamil Nadu, where Bills were sent to the President against the Constitution after reconsideration by the Assembly, highlight the absence of clear categorization.
• Ambiguities in Governor's Actions: The Constitution's ambiguity allows Governors to act in ways that may contradict its provisions, as seen in instances where Bills were sent to the President against the Constitution's mandate.
  • Such actions place the fate of Bills in the hands of Union government officials, raising concerns about the potential misuse of gubernatorial discretion.

Evaluation of Constitutional Aspects Regarding Governor's Authority in Reserving Bills:

• Constitutional Framework: In the current political context, there arises a significant inquiry into a Governor's discretion in reserving Bills for the President's consideration, a matter not explicitly addressed in the Constitution.
• Implicit References: Two constitutional provisions indirectly touch upon this issue—Article 213 deals with ordinance-making powers and Article 254(2) concerning State laws in the Concurrent List.
  • Article 213 empowers Governors to issue ordinances with presidential instructions when deeming it necessary to reserve a Bill's provisions.
  • This implies a requirement for Governors to exercise judgment within the constitutional framework.
• The use of "deemed it necessary" suggests that Governors are expected to follow constitutional principles rather than acting arbitrarily in deciding to reserve Bills.
  • Article 254(2) states that State laws on Concurrent List items prevail with presidential assent, even if conflict with existing central laws.
  • It indicates that a Bill on a Concurrent subject requires presidential assent only if it contradicts central laws; it does not mandate sending every such Bill to the President.
• Presidential Jurisdiction and Governor's Duty on State Subjects: In the federal legislative structure, the President lacks authority to scrutinize and assent to Bills exclusively related to State subjects, underscoring the Governor's constitutional responsibility.
  • Sending a Bill on State matters to the President might be viewed as an abdication of the Governor's constitutional duty, given that State List subjects are beyond the President's purview.

Conclusion

The absence of explicit provisions raises constitutional uncertainties concerning a Governor's discretionary authority in reserving Bills for the President. As constitutional interpretations evolve, there's a demand for clarity on the scope of a Governor's discretion in reserving Bills, aligning with federal principles and legislative autonomy. It's crucial to note that a Governor is not personally accountable for government actions, and the constitutional validity of a law falls within the court's jurisdiction, beyond the influence of the Governor or President.