In a landmark Judgement regarding Article 200 and Article 201 the Supreme Court has clarified the constitutional powers of Governors regarding State Bills. The verdict strikes a balance between the Governor’s discretion and the need for legislative efficiency.
- Three Options Only (No Inaction Allowed)
The Court ruled that when a Bill is presented, the Governor has exactly three constitutional options: - Assent to the Bill.
- Reserve the Bill for the President.
- Withhold & Return- the Bill to the Legislature with comments (unless it is a Money Bill).
Key Takeaway: The Governor cannotinvent a fourth option of sitting on the Bill indefinitely (a “Pocket Veto”).
- Governor’s Discretion
In a significant clarification, the Court held that when choosing among these three options, the Governor exercises their own discretion.
They are not bound by the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers in this specific function.
- Judicial Review of Inaction
While the Court cannot review the merits of the Governor’s decision (e.g., why they reserved a bill), it can review inaction.
If a Governor fails to act for a prolonged, unexplained period, the Court can issue a “limited mandamus” directing them to make a decision within a reasonable time
- No ‘Deemed Assent’
The Court firmly rejected the concept of “Deemed Assent.” Even if a Governor delays unconstitutionally, the Supreme Court cannot use Article 142 to declare the Bill automatically passed.
The constitutional legislative process cannot be bypassed by a court order.
Source-