Governors vs state governments: Supreme Court calls for introspection

Experts say 'sitting on a Bill'' not an option as Punjab, Kerala move apex court

Governors must know that they are not elected representatives of the people, a Supreme Court Bench on Monday said while hearing a petition of the Punjab government. A little bit of soul-searching by governors is needed, the apex court said.

The Punjab and Kerala state governments have moved the Supreme Court seeking that it instructs governors they cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills that a state Assembly has passed,

The Punjab government said the Raj Bhavan had assented to seven Bills that the Assembly had passed. Neither had he sent the Bills back to the government for consideration. It argued that the governor cannot indefinitely sit over the Bills as he has restricted powers under Article 200 of the Constitution. When told that Punjab Governor Banwari Lal Purohit had taken action on the Bills placed before him and that the plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in the state was unnecessary litigation, the Bench said Raj Bhavans must act on Bills before the matters reached the apex court.

“The governor can withhold assent (to bills) and send it back once,” the three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, said to the Punjab government's petition.

On November 2, the Kerala government moved a special leave petition before the SC, complaining that Governor Arif Mohammed Khan had indefinitely delayed assent to the Bills that the state legislature had passed.

It has sought the apex court’s declaration that the governor was bound to dispose of every Bill presented to him within a reasonable time.

According to reports, of the eight Bills passed by the state Assembly, three were pending with the governor for more than two years and another three for more than a year. However, he did assent to the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Bill, 2023, which the state government said was evidence that the delay in assent to other Bills was a conscious act.

According to constitutional experts, such as former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary, Article 200 of the Constitution gives three options to the governor when a Bill is presented to him after a state legislative Assembly (and the legislative council wherever existent) passes it. The governor can assent to the Bill, withhold assent, and send it back to the Assembly to reconsider it, or send it to the President for her consideration. The governor has to assent to the Bill even if the Assembly passes the Bill again without accepting any of the governor’s suggestions. The governor can refer a Bill to the President if the Bill encroaches upon any rights of the High Court or, in the governor's discretion, a subject in the Concurrent list.

“But sitting on a Bill passed by the Assembly is not an option given by the Constitution. By doing so, a governor is acting against the constitutional direction,” Achary told Business Standard.

Once a Bill is sent to the governor, they are needed to exercise one of the options "as soon as possible", including taking legal assistance, and it would be ridiculous to think that the Constitution envisaged the governor sitting on a Bill as an option, he said.

While Achary believes Article 200 is unambiguous that a governor cannot delay assenting to a Bill, it remains to be seen whether the state governments that have moved the Supreme Court secure a judicial pronouncement on an issue that has become contentious.