THE CONTEXT: Actions of some Governors in India regarding state legislation have sparked significant constitutional debate. Despite the Supreme Court’s interventions, Governors have continued to delay or withhold consent to bills, raising concerns about federalism and the balance of power between state and central governments. This issue has come to the forefront with Kerala’s challenge to the Governor’s decision to send state bills to the President, questioning the constitutionality of such actions.
THE ISSUES:
- Governor’s Discretion and Indefinite Delay: Governors have been accused of delaying Bills or withholding assent without valid reasons, thereby stalling the legislative process. The Supreme Court in the Punjab case ruled that Governors do not have a veto over Bills and must return them to the Assembly if they withhold consent. If the Assembly re-adopts the Bills, the Governors are bound to grant assent.
- Referral of Bills to the President: Governors have been sending Bills they disapprove to the President for consideration, which some argue is a misuse of the provision to subvert federalism. The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and Governors on this practice, as seen in the cases involving Kerala and West Bengal.
- Constitutional Timeliness: The Supreme Court emphasized that Governors must act on Bills “as soon as possible,” stressing the constitutional importance of timely action. In the Telangana case, the Court underscored the need for prompt action by Governors on legislative matters.
- Impact on Federalism: The practice of referring Bills to the President is seen as an indirect central intervention in the legislative domain of the States, potentially undermining federalism. Kerala’s writ petition challenges the governor’s action of referring bills to the president, arguing that it disrupts the federal structure.
- Lack of Transparency and Accountability: Governors have been withholding assent or referring Bills to the President without assigning reasons, leading to a lack of transparency. The Supreme Court has criticized the lack of communication and accountability in such actions, as seen in the cases involving West Bengal and Kerala.
- Judicial Intervention and Guidelines: There is a growing need for judicial guidelines to clarify the extent and limits of the Governor’s powers regarding assent to Bills. The Supreme Court has been urged to lay down clear guidelines on when Governors can return or refer Bills, as highlighted in the Kerala and West Bengal petitions.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Establish a Clear Time Frame for Assent: Amend Article 200 to specify a clear time frame (e.g., 30 days) for the Governor to act on a bill. This would ensure timely decision-making and reduce undue delays. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, emphasized that Governors must act on bills “as soon as possible” and return them if they withhold assent.
- Limit the Scope of Presidential Reference: Define and limit the circumstances under which a bill can be reserved for the President’s consideration. This could include only bills directly affecting national interests or constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court has noted that the Governor’s power to reserve bills should be exercised sparingly and only in specific circumstances.
- Mandatory Communication of Reasons: The Supreme Court has ruled that if a Governor withholds consent, they must communicate their reasons and return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration. Amend the Constitution to require Governors to provide written reasons for withholding assent or reserving a bill for the President. This would ensure transparency and accountability.
- Strengthen Judicial Review of Gubernatorial Actions: Strengthen judicial review mechanisms to allow state legislatures to challenge the Governor’s actions in court if they believe there has been an abuse of power or undue delay. This would ensure that Governors act within the bounds of their constitutional authority. While the Governor and President are generally not answerable to courts for their actions (Article 361), the Supreme Court has intervened in cases where gubernatorial actions are considered arbitrary or unconstitutional.
- Reform the Appointment and Removal Process of Governors: Implement the Punchhi and Sarkaria Commissions’ recommendations to ensure that Governors act impartially and, in the state’s, best interests. This would include consulting the Chief Minister before appointment and allowing state legislatures to impeach Governors for misconduct or abuse of power.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court’s adjudication on this matter is crucial to maintaining the constitutional balance between State and central powers. By placing clear limitations on the discretionary powers of Governors, the Court can prevent the misuse of the provision for reserving Bills for the President’s consideration, thereby safeguarding the legislative autonomy of State Assemblies and upholding the spirit of federalism envisaged in the Constitution.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 Discuss the essential conditions for exercising the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of the re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. 2022
Q.2 Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and the elected government of Delhi? Examine. 2018
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Discuss the implications of Governors withholding assent to Bills or referring them to the President. What measures can be taken to maintain the constitutional balance between the Centre and the States?
SOURCE:
Spread the Word