The Supreme Court of India has delineated the constitutional boundaries for governors regarding bills passed by state assemblies. In a significant ruling, the court stated that governors, as titular heads of states, do not possess the power to indefinitely withhold or veto legislative actions of elected governments. This judgment, delivered by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, clarifies the governor’s role in the legislative process.
The court’s decision, arising from a plea by the Punjab government against Governor Banwarilal Purohit, emphasizes that governors cannot sit indefinitely on bills duly passed by the legislature. Justice Chandrachud, authoring the judgment, stated,
“Unbridled powers to an unelected head of state to sit indefinitely over bills virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse is contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a parliamentary pattern of governance.”
The judgment also reaffirmed the speaker’s absolute power in adjourning and proroguing the House, stating,
“It is the right of each House of the legislature to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings so as to be immune from challenge before a court of law.”
Addressing the ambiguity in Article 200 of the Constitution, which does not specify a timeframe for a governor’s decision on bill assent, the bench suggested that the period could not be interminably long.
“The expression ‘as soon as possible’ is significant. It conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition. Failure to take a call and keeping a bill duly passed for indeterminate periods is a course of action inconsistent with that expression,”
the bench added.
The court held that if a governor decides to withhold assent to a bill, they must return it to the legislature for reconsideration. This clarification is crucial as it prevents governors from derailing the legislative process by merely stating they are withholding assent. The judgment stated,
“If the first proviso is not read in juxtaposition to the power to withhold assent conferred by the substantive part of Article 200, the Governor as the unelected Head of State would be in a position to virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse.”
Reaffirming the governor’s role as a symbolic head, the court underscored that real power lies with the elected representatives.
“In a Parliamentary form of democracy, real power vests in the elected representatives of the people. The Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers. However, this power cannot be used to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislatures,”
the judgment read.
This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on governors across India, including in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, where they have been accused of stalling bills passed by the legislature. The Supreme Court’s clarification on the governor’s constitutional role in the legislative process marks a crucial step in upholding the principles of democracy and federalism in India.
