What are the four options available to a Governor under Article 200 when a bill is presented to them?

Under Article 200, the Governor can: 1. Grant assent, making the bill an Act. 2. Withhold assent, effectively rejecting the bill (but must return it for reconsideration). 3. Return the bill (if not a Money Bill) to the legislature with a message for reconsideration. 4. Reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.

Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU

Context

The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench stated that the judiciary cannot impose binding timelines on the President or a Governor for granting assent to bills.

Read all about: Supreme Court Fix Deadlines for Governors l can judiciary review inaction of governors on bills? l About Sanity to Constitutional System

Supreme Court's Judgement on Assent to Bills

A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India, held that the judiciary cannot impose binding timelines on the President or a Governor for granting assent to bills.

It clarified that Articles 200 (Governor's assent) and 201 (President's consideration of reserved bills) are designed to allow "elasticity" for constitutional authorities.

Background of the Issue

Earlier Two-Judge Bench Verdict (April 2025):

In a case involving the Tamil Nadu government and Governor, the Supreme Court had intervened due to prolonged inaction on 10 bills.
This bench set specific timelines: three months for Governors to act on bills (withholding assent or reserving for President) and one month for re-enacted bills.
It also introduced the concept of "deemed assent" for certain Tamil Nadu bills, treating them as passed due to the Governor's prolonged delay, using Article 142.

Presidential Reference (Article 143):

Following the judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion.
The reference posed 14 questions, seeking clarity on the constitutional limits of powers under Articles 200 and 201 and the permissibility of judicially imposed timelines or "deemed assent."

Purpose of Advisory Opinion: The Presidential Reference sought an authoritative opinion from a larger bench to resolve the "state of confusion and doubt" created by the earlier ruling.

Which Constitutional Provisions Govern Assent to Bills?

Article 111 (President's Assent to Parliamentary Bills):

When a bill passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the President, the President can:

Grant assent, making the bill a law.
Withhold assent.
Return the bill (if not a Money Bill) for reconsideration, with a message.

If Parliament re-passes the bill with or without amendments and presents it again, the President "shall not withhold assent therefrom" (must give assent).
The Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeframe for the President's action.

Article 200 (Governor's Assent to State Bills):

When a bill passed by a state legislature is presented to the Governor, the Governor can:

Grant assent.
Withhold assent.
Reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.
Return the bill (if not a Money Bill) for reconsideration by the legislature, with a message.

If the legislature re-passes the bill and presents it again, the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom."
The Governor can still reserve a re-passed bill for the President's consideration.
Article 200 mandates the Governor to act "as soon as possible" when returning a bill.

Discretionary Power: The Governor enjoys discretion in choosing among these options and is not bound by the "aid and advice" of the Council of Ministers in this specific function.

Article 201 (Bills Reserved for President's Consideration):

When a bill is reserved by a Governor for the President's consideration, the President can:

Assent to the bill.
Withhold assent.
Direct the Governor to return the bill to the state legislature for reconsideration (if not a Money Bill).

The Constitution does not prescribe a time limit for the President's decision on reserved bills.
Unlike the Governor, the President is not constitutionally bound to give assent if the state legislature re-passes a bill returned under Article 201.

Why did the Supreme Court Reject Imposing Timelines?

Constitutional Design and Elasticity

The Court noted that Articles 200 and 201 are "framed to allow elasticity" and imposing rigid timelines would be "strictly contrary to the Constitution."

Separation of Powers

Prescribing timelines would amount to judicial overreach and rewrite the Constitution, thus violating the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure.

"Deemed Assent" Unconstitutional

The Court rejected the concept of "deemed assent" (bills automatically becoming law after a certain period of inaction).

What is the Scope of Judicial Review of Governor's/President's Actions?

Non-Justiciability of Merits

The Court held that the Governor's or President's actions under Articles 200 and 201 are generally "non-justiciable." Courts cannot examine a bill's contents or review the decision (assent, withhold, or reserve) before it becomes law.

Limited Judicial Review for Inaction

The Court clarified that "prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction" by a Governor that hinders the legislative process is subject to "limited judicial scrutiny."

In such cases, the Court may issue a limited direction (mandamus) requiring the Governor to act within a "reasonable, time-bound period," without commenting on the merits of the bill.

Article 361 (Governor's Immunity)

Article 361 grants the Governor personal immunity from judicial proceedings, but the Court held this cannot excuse indefinite delays or nullify limited judicial review of the constitutional office.

President's Discretion under Article 201

The President's decision to assent or withhold assent from a state bill reserved under Article 201 is not open to judicial review on its merits.

What are the Implications of the Ruling for Federalism and Governance?

Upholding Constitutional Architecture

The ruling upholds the constitutional separation of powers, confirming the intended roles of the President and Governors as per the framers.

Balance of Power

It upholds the Governor's discretion (Art 200) and the President's powers (Art 111, 201), avoiding judicial takeover of executive roles.

Cooperative Federalism

Governors must resolve bill differences with elected legislatures through dialogue, not obstruction, as indefinite delays negate the people's will expressed by the legislature.

What are the Challenges Regarding Assent to Bills?

"Pocket Veto by Inaction: Governors/President can indefinitely delay a bill, acting as a "pocket veto" due to the lack of a constitutional timeline.

Against Legislative Will: Indefinite delays undermine the democratic process and the will of state legislatures.

Federalism Concerns: The discretionary power of the Governor, a Union appointee, over state legislation raises concerns about federal balance.

Lack of Accountability: Without clear timelines or accountability, assent delays can appear arbitrary or politically motivated.

Ambiguity in "As Soon As Possible": The constitutional phrase "as soon as possible" (Article 200) lacks a precise definition, leading to misuse and varied interpretations.

Way Forward

Institutional Dialogue: The Supreme Court advocated for a "dialogue process" between Governors and state legislatures to iron out differences.

Codification of Conventions: Developing stronger constitutional conventions or guidelines regarding the reasonable timeframe for Governors/President to act on bills.

Constitutional Amendment (Legislative Route): Parliament should amend Articles 111, 200, and 201 to introduce specific, reasonable timelines for assent, similar to provisions in some other democracies like the USA.

Inter-State Council: Strengthening bodies like the Inter-State Council to discuss and resolve issues related to the Governor's role and assent to bills.

Implementing Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission Recommendations

Sarkaria Commission (1988): Recommended that the President should dispose of a bill reserved by a Governor within six months.
Punchhi Commission (2010): Suggested a six-month limit for Governors to take a decision on a bill, and for the President to decide on reserved bills.

Case-by-Case Judicial Intervention: The Court's current stance allows for intervention in cases of "prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction," which acts as a check without imposing universal timelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary cannot impose binding timelines on the President or Governors for bill assent due to the separation of powers and constitutional immunity (Article 361), yet it cautioned that indefinite delay is impermissible, urging constitutional dialogue instead of obstruction.

Source: THEHINDU

Attempt Daily Quiz

PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. Critically analyze the Supreme Court's stance that constitutional authorities like Governors cannot be bound by judicial timelines for deciding on bills. 150 words

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

The Supreme Court cannot set a deadline due to two main principles: 1) The Doctrine of Separation of Powers, which prevents the judiciary from encroaching on the executive's constitutional functions, and 2) Article 361 of the Constitution, which grants personal immunity to the Governor from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their official powers.

Under Article 200, the Governor can:

1. Grant assent, making the bill an Act.
2. Withhold assent, effectively rejecting the bill (but must return it for reconsideration).
3. Return the bill (if not a Money Bill) to the legislature with a message for reconsideration.
4. Reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.

If the State Legislature passes the bill again, with or without the amendments suggested by the Governor, and presents it for assent, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent. They cannot withhold assent or return it a second time, though the option to reserve it for the President may still be available.