The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong reservation on the interpretation of the Central Government of the Governor’s powers under the Constitution, given that if a governor could permanently agree to the bills passed by an elected state legislature, it will effectively leave the state government on the “frenzy and fans” of a nominated office-bear.
The comment came on the second day of the hearing before a constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gawai, with Justice Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandras, in the context of a President under Article 143. The President to decide on pending bills in front of them.
In the center of Wednesday’s plea, Article 200 had to read the center of the word “Witholdold”, which Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued a governor to empower a bill to reject a bill, left for “fall” without the option of sending it back to the Legislature.
Article 200 provides an option to the Governor to either accept the bill passed by the State Legislature, consent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s approval
Mehta said, “This power should be used restraint and rarely, but this power is with him,” saying that saying that such rights will reduce the governor to “one post office”.
The bench, however, pushed back. “If he does not send the bill again, he can still stop a bill for time,” the court said, citing examples such as Tamil Nadu, where the bill implemented by the Legislative Assembly was limited without any announcement from the governor.
“Are we not giving the total powers to the Governor to appeal on the decisions of an elected government? Then, the government elected with the majority will be on the fan and fancy of the Governor,” said this.
The bench also underlined that the constitutional interpretation could not remain “frozen in time” and should be informed by experience. “When the laws were originally enacted, ideal conditions were considered … but interpretation is a process and keeps in mind how these constitutional functions are working today.”
The bench cited an example of anti-inspiration law under the 10th schedule, where the speaker was originally seen as the best assistant, but decades of litigation forced the courts to re-examine the perception. “The legitimacy of a constitutional vision comes from its performance and experience,” said, the absence of legislative impact assessment during framing left the provisions such as Article 200 “weaker for complications and disputes”.
However, Mehta insisted that the power to withdraw the consent of the governor should be preserved in “extraordinary circumstances”, including cases containing national security or where a bill can violate fundamental rights. He said, “His oath to defend the Constitution would need him to use this power in rare cases,” he said, while warning the court against converting the governor into a formal person.
The bench repeatedly suppressed the Solicitor General as to whether the power of “Rok” could be read as an uncertain veto, indicating that the Provizo for Article 200 prevents a governor to prevent acceptance after the assembly is re-passed. “If Rok means killing a bill, how do we cover it with Proviso?” The court asked.
During the day’s hearing, SG Mehta referred to the constituent assembly debate in a big way to strengthen his point. However, the bench gave an indication on whether the Governor remains even a vision expressed by the Frams of the Constitution, which emphasized harmony between the Governor and the elected state government.
“The first part of this speech you are reading says that there should be harmony between the governor and the elected government. The second part says that the provincial government will be advised to appoint the Governor. Is this done? Is the expectations expressed during the constituent assembly debate have actually been felt?” Said this.
At one point, the bench stated that the Governor should “declare” or communicate his decision to withdraw a bill in the state assembly, will be around the meaning of the word “restriction” to add the central points of the debate and the timeline.
Inspired by the April’s decision of the court in the Tamil Nadu case, the President’s reference, asks if the judiciary may impose a deadline on constitutional officials like the governor and the President when the constitution itself is silent. In that judgment, a two-judge bench also set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills referred to by a governor, and to work on the re-implemented bills to a governor in a month. Even it applied Article 142 to accept 10 Tamil Nadu bills, after assuming that the prolonged inactivity of the governor was “illegal”.
On Tuesday, clarifying that it is providing only one advisory opinion and not sitting in the appeal on its April decision, the Constitution Bench has indicated that the meaning of “restriction” under Article 200, and whether such conscience can be the amount for a complete veto, will be central for its opinion.
