Article 200 is under scrutiny as the Supreme Court examines governors' powers to withhold assent to state bills. This article discusses the Governor's powers regarding bills passed by the state legislature. According to the latest update, the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the Tamil Nadu government's plea against Governor R.N. Ravi, which will have significant implications on similar cases.
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution is in the news because of instances where Governors have withheld assent to state bills, leading to legal and political disputes. The Supreme Court is hearing petitions, including one from the Tamil Nadu government, challenging Governor R.N. Ravi's decision to withhold assent to certain bills and refer others to the President.
These cases also affect other states like Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab, where similar issues have occurred. The Supreme Court's decisions seek to clarify the constitutional limits of the Governor's authority. On Monday, the Court stated that Article 200 expects the Governor to communicate the reasons for withholding assent to the state.
“The Governor has his own importance. He is an important figure in the Constitution. He has an important role to play, undoubtedly. On the contrary, the proviso expects the Governor to make himself very clear before the House that look, this is what it has to do” -Justice J B Pardiwala |
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution discusses the Governor’s role in assenting to bills passed by the State legislature. The text of the Constitution reads:
Article 200. Assent to Bills.— When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President: Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom: Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill. |
Article 200 outlines the powers of the Governor over state bills. It states that when a bill is passed by the state legislature, the Governor has the authority to:
When the state bill is reserved for the President, he has the following options under Article 201 of the Indian constitution:
While Article 200 specifies that the Governor must decide on granting assent to a Bill 'as soon as possible,' it does not prescribe a specific time limit, which has led to delays. While the Supreme Court is set to deliver its judgment on the Tamil Nadu government’s petitions, here are some legal precedents on Article 200:
Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker (2016): In this case, the Court ruled that Governors cannot withhold assent to Bills indefinitely. It emphasized that the Governor must return Bills with recommendations or messages if there are concerns, instead of leaving them pending for too long.
The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr. (2023): The Supreme Court stated that the Governor must either grant assent or return Bills with suggestions, ensuring that the legislative process is not obstructed. This judgment reinforced the principles from the 2016 case, ensuring more accountability for the Governor's actions.
In conclusion, Article 200 empowers Governors to decide on state bills but lacks a clear timeframe for decision-making, leading to delays. The Supreme Court's rulings will clarify the limits of the Governor's discretion and ensure accountability in the legislative process.