• Article 200 of the constitution gives the Governor options to act on the bill passed by the State Assembly.
• But there is no timeline given for the Governor to give assent on the bills.
• In many states, the governor does not exercise their power under Article 200 and they do not decide any options available to them.
• This move is resisting state governments to act according to the Constitution.
• Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution urging the President of India, to fix a timeline for assent to be given to Bills passed by the Assembly.

How a resolution of Tamil Nadu is legitimate?

• Article 355 of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of the Union to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
• Purpose: to provide justification for the “invasion of the provincial field” which the Union government may have to do.
• Article 200 of the constitution requires Governor to act when a Bill is passed by the Assembly and present it to him.
• If the governor does not act in accordance with the Constitution and pockets the Bills indefinitely, then the governance of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with constitutional provisions.
• In such situations, the state government has a constitutional duty to invoke Article 355 and inform the President about it, and request her to give suitable instructions to the Governor.

What are the options provided to the governor?

• Article 200 of the constitution provides options to the Governor when a Bill is presented to him after being passed by the legislature.
• These options are:
• To give assent,
• To withhold assent,
• To send it back to the Assembly to reconsider it, or
• To send the Bill to the President for his consideration.
• If the Assembly reconsiders the Bill as per the 3^rd option and sends the bill again to the governor, he has to give assent even if the Assembly passes it again without accepting any of the suggestions of the Governor.
• Sitting on a Bill passed by the Assembly is not an option given by the Constitution, the Governor, by doing so, is only acting against the constitutional direction.

Governor’s assent a discretion or advice?

Practice followed in the United Kingdom:

• The position of the Governor in this respect is that of the sovereign in England.
• The Governor can refuse to give his assent but this right has not been exercised since the reign of Queen Anne.
• The veto could now only be exercised on ministerial advice and no government would veto Bills for which it was responsible.

Is the governor’s assent to the bill a discretionary power?

• Under Article 154 of the Constitution, the Governor can exercise his executive powers only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Therefore, there is a view that the Governor can withhold assent to a Bill only on ministerial advice.

Can the government advice the governor to withhold assent?

• Yes, the government can advise the Governor to withhold assent if it has second thoughts on the Bill after it has been passed.
• This can be seen in the U.K. where the sovereign refuses assent only on ministerial advice.
• However, it seems that under the Indian Constitution, it is vested in the Governor to withhold assent.

Supreme Courts Judgements on Governor’s Assent

• As per the judgments of the Supreme Court, it is not justiciable for governor to sit on the bills passed by the State Assembly.

Purushothaman Namboothiri vs State of Kerala (1962):

• Issue, in this case, was that a Bill which is pending with the Governor does not lapse on the dissolution of the Assembly.
• This judgment does not deal with the justiciability of the process of assent.

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And ... vs State Of Bihar And Others (1983):

• It deals with the power of the Governor to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President.
• SC held that a Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President in exercise of his discretion.
• Court cannot go into the question of whether it was necessary for the Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
• This case too does not deal with the justiciability of assent.

The clarity on the Governors sitting on the bill and not exercising the options given in Article 200 is not given in the Constitution or in Supreme Court’s judgments. It is a new development that needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court. SC needs to fix a reasonable time frame for Governors to take a decision on a Bill passed by the Assembly in the larger interest of federalism in the country.