| Article 200 and 201 of Constitution • If the Governor withholds assent, they must return the Bills to the Assembly. • If the Assembly readopts the Bills, the Governors are bound to grant assent. • The Court observed that Governors must act on Bills “as soon as possible,” emphasising the constitutional significance of this phrase. • With the curtailment of their discretion to indefinitely delay assent, Governors have started sending Bills they disapprove of to the President for consideration. • When the President, advised by the Union government under Article 201, refuses assent, state legislatures have no recourse. |
- The handling of state legislation by some Governors has raised serious constitutional concerns.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Governors do not have a veto over Bills.
- The misuse of the provision for Presidential consideration of Bills undermines federalism.
- Kerala has filed a writ petition against the Governor’s action of sending Bills to the President and the subsequent refusal of assent.
- Despite Supreme Court judgments, the Governors of these states have not acted accordingly.
- Kerala sent seven Bills to the President, four of which were refused without reason. The inaction on these Bills ranged from 10 to 23 months.
- The provision for Presidential consideration is being questioned as a contrived veto over State laws, not envisaged by the Constitution.
- It is time for the Court to adjudicate this issue and establish clear limitations on the use of the option given to Governors.
- This would ensure that Governors act in accordance with constitutional principles and respect the legislative authority of State Assemblies.
Dig Deeper: Read Article 163 of the Indian Constitution in the context of discretionary powers to the Governor.
