SC questions governors' authority to withhold assent to money bills

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said Article 207 requires a governor's nod for introducing a money bill. So there's no scope for withholding by the governor once introduced

The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised concerns over the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution that allows governors to withhold assent to state bills.

 

The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and others comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, said such an interpretation could enable governors to withhold even money bills, which they are otherwise bound to approve, LiveLaw reported.

 

“The Union says the power of withholding stands on its own and the Governor can withhold the Bill. Therefore, when you independently exercise the power of withholding, it is a little problematic. Because, at the threshold, the Governor withholds the Bill. There is a problem because with this power, even a money bill can be withheld. The proviso will not apply there. There is a big problem with that interpretation,” Justice Narasimha observed, as quoted by LiveLaw.

 

 

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Maharashtra state, however, maintained that a plain reading of Article 200 gives the governor four options: 1) to grant assent, 2) return a bill, 3) reserve it for the President, or 4) withhold assent.

 

“The substantive provision of Article 200 does not say that the governor cannot withhold a money bill,” Salve argued. He said limitations not expressly placed by the framers cannot be introduced by interpretation.

 

What did the Centre say

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that Article 207 addressed the issue. Under this provision, a money bill can only be introduced with the governor’s prior recommendation. “Hence, there is no question of the governor withholding a money bill, since it is introduced with the governor’s recommendation,” he told the Bench.

 

Salve, however, countered that situations could arise where the version of the money bill passed by the legislature diverged from what was recommended. In such cases, he said, the governor could withhold assent. “If what is approved finally does not accord with what was recommended by the governor, the governor can withhold assent,” he said.

 

Mehta reiterated that governors hold four options under Article 200 and that withholding assent leads to the bill falling through. But he also stressed that the power should be exercised rarely. “The governor is not just a postman. He represents the Union of India, appointed by the President. The President is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression,” he said.

 

Salve supported this view, cautioning against imposing timeframes on political processes. “Article 200 does not set out a time limit under which the governor has to set out his discretion—political process takes place behind the scheme, we achieve in 15 days but in some cases it takes six months,” he said.

 

He also submitted that courts cannot review the reasons for withholding assent, as there are no “judicially manageable standards” for such scrutiny. To a direct question from the CJI, “Can the court ask the governor why he is withholding?” Salve answered: “No”.

The case in reference 

The hearings arise from a Presidential reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. President Droupadi Murmu referred a set of questions to the Supreme Court following its April 8 ruling that had imposed timelines on governors and the President to act on state bills.

 

Referring to the absence of deadlines on governors and the President, the CJI said: “Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over an appeal. The government elected with the majority will be at (the) whims and fancies of (the) governor.”

 

The April 8 order, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, invoked the court’s special powers under Article 142 to set deadlines, holding that delays in assenting to bills could stall governance.

 

President Murmu, on May 13, formally asked the court for its opinion on 14 questions of law, including the ambit of powers under Articles 142 and 200. The states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu subsequently challenged the maintainability of the reference, contending that it was an indirect attempt by the Centre to revisit binding precedents. They urged the court to decline answering.

 

The Centre, however, supported the reference, arguing that the power of governors and the President to act on bills cannot be bound by judicial timelines. It said that the Constitution does not prescribe any such limits. Mehta said, “Everyone derives power from the Constitution,” adding that the use of discretion by constitutional functionaries cannot be subject to external deadlines.