Analysis of Supreme Court's Ruling on Governor's Assent Powers
- ByAdmin --
- 13 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying the constitutional powers and limitations of Governors concerning the assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures. This ruling comes amid increasing friction between State Governments and Governors, especially in opposition-ruled states. By laying down clear guidelines, the Court reasserted the constitutional scheme of responsible government, federalism, and the Governor's primarily ceremonial role under the Indian Constitution.
Constitutional Background
- Article 200 of the Constitution of India:
Empowers the Governor to assent to a Bill, withhold assent, reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration, or return it (if not a money Bill) for reconsideration.
- Article 201:
Provides the procedure when a Bill is reserved for the President’s consideration.
- Doctrine of Constitutional Morality:
Emphasizes that constitutional functionaries must act in a manner faithful to the values and spirit of the Constitution.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Ruling
- Governor is Bound by the Aid and Advice of the Council of Ministers:
The Court reiterated that the Governor is not an independent authority but must act on the aid and advice of the State’s elected government, except in specific discretionary situations expressly provided in the Constitution.
- Assent Cannot Be Withheld Arbitrarily:
Withholding assent is not at the personal discretion of the Governor. It must be based on sound constitutional grounds. Delay or refusal without justification would violate constitutional propriety.
- Timely Action Required:
The Court observed that Governors must act “as soon as possible” regarding Bills, as per Article 200. Indefinite delays in granting assent are unconstitutional.
- Reservation for Presidential Consideration is Limited:
Reservation should not be done routinely or for political reasons. It should only happen when the Bill prima facie appears to be inconsistent with central laws, affects national interests, or falls under matters where the President must decide.
Judicial Precedents Reaffirmed
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974):
Held that the Governor is a constitutional head who must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016):
Reinforced that the Governor cannot interfere in legislative functioning and must adhere to the constitutional framework.
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006):
Underlined that Governors cannot act in a partisan manner or undermine democratic processes.
Implications of the Ruling
- Strengthening Federalism:
The judgment reinforces the federal structure by limiting the scope for gubernatorial misuse to delay or block legislation passed by democratically elected State Assemblies.
- Curtailing Political Disputes:
By setting boundaries on the Governor’s role, the Court aims to reduce frequent political confrontations between State governments and Governors.
- Accountability and Transparency:
Governors must now justify their decisions regarding assent or reservation, ensuring transparency in the use of their constitutional powers.
- Potential for Judicial Enforcement:
If Governors delay or refuse assent arbitrarily, their actions could be subjected to judicial review, preserving the rule of law.
Challenges and Areas of Concern
- Scope for Future Litigation:
While the judgment provides clarity, interpreting "valid constitutional grounds" may still lead to further judicial scrutiny.
- Center-State Relations:
Political appointments of Governors could continue to complicate smooth relations, despite legal clarifications.
- Need for Legislative Reforms:
Experts have suggested the formulation of clearer timelines and procedural norms for Governors through constitutional amendments or parliamentary laws.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Governor’s assent powers reasserts the primacy of democratic processes and constitutional accountability. It ensures that the office of the Governor does not become a tool for political obstructionism but remains a neutral constitutional authority. Going forward, strict adherence to this judgment is necessary to uphold the spirit of cooperative federalism, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments