In a parliamentary democracy, Governors do not have a unilateral veto over Bills passed by the legislature. This is the crux of the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case arising from Punjab after Governor Banwarilal Purohit withheld assent to some Bills passed by the State Assembly on the pretext that these were adopted in an illegal session of the House.

• Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another, delivered on November 10, and made available on November 23, is a landmark in resolving federal disputes impinging on the office of the Governor.
• The elected government in Punjab was aggrieved on the ground that its Governor, neither assented to or returned four Bills passed by the State Assembly.
• The Governor was also accused of not furnishing a recommendation for the introduction of certain Money Bills in the Assembly.

Supreme Court’s judgment - State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab

• The Supreme Court has now read the power to withhold assent and the proviso in conjuction, holding that whenever the Governor withholds assent, he has to send the Bill back to the legislature for reconsideration.
  • This effectively means that the Governor either grants assents in the first instance or will be compelled to do so after the Bill’s second passage.
• The Court has done well to point out that Governors, in a system that requires them to function mainly on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, cannot withhold action on Bills and must act as soon as possible.
• This is a clear reprimand administered to Governors who believe they can endlessly delay action on Cabinet or legislative proposals because of the absence of a prescribed timeframe.
  • Governor’s stand that the particular session of the Assembly was illegal because an adjourned House was reconvened by the Speaker on his own-has been rejected.
• The Court has ruled that the earlier session had only been adjourned and not prorogued.

There is still some residual scope for controversy if, as a result of Governors being divested of the power to reject Bills unilaterally, they start referring Bills they disapprove of to the President.

• Such an eventuality should not be allowed to arise.

Governor’s power with respect to the bills

Article 200 of the constitution:

• When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor.
• Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or withholds assent or reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President.
• Governor may also return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill with a message requesting reconsideration by the house or houses.

Article 201 of the constitution:

• When a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the consideration of the President, the President shall declare either assents to the Bill or withholds assent from the bill.
• President may also direct the Governor to return the Bill to the House or houses of the legislature of the state for reconsideration.
• In case the Governor chooses to withhold assent, he should return the Bill as soon as possible with a message requesting the Legislative Assembly to reconsider the proposed law or any specified provisions or suggest amendments.
• The Assembly would reconsider and pass the Bill, and this time, the Governor should not withhold his assent.
• In short, the constitutional head of the State would bow to the considered decision of the elected representatives of the people.

Various Committee Recommendations:

The Sarkaria Commission (1987):

• The Commission has submitted that it is only the reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, that too under rare cases of unconstitutionality, that can be implied as a discretionary power of the Governor.
• Save in such exceptional cases, the Governor must discharge his functions under Article 200 as per the advice of ministers.
• It further recommended that the President should dispose of such Bills within a maximum period of six months.
• In the event of the President ‘withholding assent’, the reasons should be communicated to the State Government wherever possible.

The Punchhi Commission (2010):

The Commission had recommended that the Governor  should take a decision with respect to a Bill presented for their assent within a period of six months.

• However, these recommendations have not been implemented till date.

Challenges associated with Governor’s office

The Appointment of Governors: The Governor  of a State shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the central government.

• Many states are unhappy about the role of the governor because the governor is appointed by the central government.
• Therefore, there is a possibility of the Governor’s office being used to control and remove the state government.

Disproportionate role in the affairs of opposition-ruled States: Most opposition-ruled States, namely, Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab, Telangana, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu have had problems with respective Governors, who sought to display overbearing attitudes vis-a-vis the elected governments, using their discretionary powers under the Constitution.

No constitutional provisions in case of disagreement: There are no provisions laid down in the Constitution for the manner in which the Governor and the state must engage publicly when there is a difference of opinion.

Looking Ahead

• As per our Constitutional scheme, there is a need for a nominal head of the State executive just like the President for the Union executive.
• However, federalism is a basic feature of our Constitution and the Governor’s office should not undermine the powers of elected governments at the States.
• The Constitution may be amended to provide that the Chief Ministers shall be consulted before appointment of the Governors.
• The recommendation of the Punchhi Commission that Governors may be removed through an impeachment by the State Legislature can also be considered.
  • This would arm the State legislatures with the power to remove an uncooperative Governor.

The problem of delay in according to assent to Bills passed by the legislature is a burning issue that confronts our polity and quite often is an affront to our democracy and its fundamentals. Giving assent to Bills is one of the few areas in which the Governor can exercise his discretion. But again, this discretion cannot be used arbitrarily or based on a personal preference, but only in Constitutional terms with cogent reasons.