The Governor's Discretion on Bills: A Constitutional Analysis of Judicial Intervention
UPSC Relevance
Prelims: Indian Polity and Governance (Governor's powers - Article 200, Article 163; Constitutional History - Government of India Act 1935; Union's duties - Article 355; Judiciary - Landmark Judgments, Presidential Reference).
Mains:
General Studies Paper 2 (Polity & Governance): Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure; Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities; Separation of powers. This is a deep-dive, Mains-oriented topic.
Key Highlights from the News
Is the Governor empowered with discretionary powers to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures? This is a major constitutional debate.
Section 75 of the Government of India Act, 1935 explicitly stated that the Governor could act "in his discretion." However, these words were deliberately omitted in Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.
This indicates the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the Governor should exercise powers under Article 200 based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
However, bodies like the Sarkaria Commission have stated that in certain extraordinary circumstances (e.g., if a bill is unconstitutional), the Governor can use discretionary powers.
Even though the Constitution does not specify a time limit, Governors indefinitely withholding bills for years is unconstitutional.
Article 355 mandates the Union Government to ensure that the administration of a state is carried out in accordance with the Constitution. When the Governor withholds bills, the Centre should have intervened to fulfill this duty.
It is because the Centre failed to do so that the Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, had to intervene and set a time limit.
The author argues that it is the court's job to interpret the Constitution to face new challenges (judicial interpretation), rather than to amend it, as Article 21 was interpreted in the Maneka Gandhi case.
COMMENTS