New Delhi, Aug 20: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said Governor cannot send bills to President for consideration when presented to him for the second time after the state assembly has cleared it.
The top court made the remark while questioning the Centre over the powers of Governor when it comes to granting assent to bills.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, Governor has to either assent to a bill passed by the assembly or he can withhold assent or he can send it for the consideration of President.
Under the scheme, Governor also has the power to send back the bill to the assembly for reconsideration provided it is not a money bill.
The observation of a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai comes in the wake of Centre’s stand that Governor can exercise his power to send the bill to President even after the assembly puts it before him for the second time.
“If the fourth option (of returning the bill to the assembly for reconsideration) is to be exercised (by Governor) with a message for reconsideration to the assembly, then the option of withholding assent or sending the bill to President becomes defunct…,” the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Centre.
During the hearing on the presidential reference over the assent to bills, the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said if Governor decides to simply withhold assent to bills without returning them to the legislative assembly for reconsideration, it would place the elected governments at the “whims and fancies of Governor”.
“If Governor can indefinitely withhold assent, governments formed by majority support would be at the mercy of an unelected appointee,” the bench said.
It added, “Under Article 200, Governor has four options – either he assents or that he withholds assent or that he reserves the bill for the consideration of President. Exercising power under proviso he can return the bill to the legislative assembly for reconsideration. Now, if the bill is passed again by the house and presented to Governor for assent, Governor shall not withhold assent. He cannot send the bill for consideration of President in the second instance.”
The top court said Governor’s power to withhold assent should be left open-ended.
Justice Narasimha countered the Centre’s contention that if Governor decided to withhold assent, the bill fell through and said such an interpretation of Article 200 was counterproductive to Governor’s powers.
He said there could be cases where Governor may first withhold, give reasons for it and return the bill for amendments to the assembly and in the second instance, Governor could later change his mind and grant assent in case the assembly makes the necessary amendments in the bill.
“The interpretation of Governor’s powers cannot be straitjacket. It should be left open-ended. The Constitution is a living document. Its interpretation cannot remain static,” Justice Narasimha said.
Mehta, however, sought to distinguish between the powers of Governor and President, saying the former had more powers under the Constitution and he cannot be merely reduced to an office of a postman, if he cannot use his discretion to withhold assent to bills.
“He represents the Centre in the scheme of Constitution and is appointed by President, who is, in turn, elected by the nation by way of an indirect election,” he said.
He added the power of “withholding” of the bill by Governor has to be used sparingly and only in extraordinary situations and no time limit has been put for Governor during the exercise of first three options — assent, withhold or reserve for President’s consideration.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal opposed Mehta’s submissions and argued by that logic, President could also withhold assent on Centre’s bills under Article 111 of the Constitution.
The CJI said there was a presumption that the power vested with high constitutional authorities would be exercised in a bonafide manner.
“We will interpret the Constitution,” he said, “the way it has to be interpreted without going into the political scenarios.”
Earlier in the day, the bench asked whether the country has lived up to the expectations of the Constitution framers that there will be harmony between the governor and the state government, besides the consultation on various issues between the two power centres. (PTI)
