States in Court against their Governors

States in Court against their Governors

Subject : Polity

Section: Executive

Context:

Some States ruled by political parties in opposition to the party in power at the Center have approached the Supreme Court (SC) accusing their Governors of using a non­existent discretion to unreasonably delay the passing of crucial Bills into law. The Bills in limbo cover sectors such as public health, higher education, Lokayukta and cooperative societies.

Some accusations on the Office of Governor 

• Tamil Nadu has accused its Governor of sitting on the Bills by neither assenting nor returning them.
• Kerala, in its separate petition, said that eight proposed laws passed by its Legislative Assembly were pending with the Governor, not for months, but years.
• Kerala has asked the Supreme Court to form a 7 ­judge Bench to review a 5 judge Bench judgement in the 1962 Purushothaman Nambudiri case which held the view that Article 200 did not provide “for a time limit within which the Governor should come to a decision on the Bill referred to him for his assent”. The State said that, at the time, the court did not consider the possibility of Governors holding back Bills for an indefinite time.
• SC had to intervene in April for the Telangana Governor to clear Bills pending since 2022, compelling the advocate appearing for the State to submit that legislatures in Opposition Ruled States were at the mercy of the Governors, who had become a law unto themselves.

How is assent granted?

• Article 200 of the Constitution enables the Governor, when a Bill passed by both Houses of the Legislature, to either declare his assent to the Bill or withhold the assent if it is not a Money Bill, or reserve the law for the consideration of the President.
• Article 163 There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.
• The top court in the Shamsher Singh case verdict has held that as a formal head of the State a “Governor exercises all his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion.” The assent or return of the Bill does not involve the discretion of individuals occupying the Governor’s post.

By when should Bills be returned?

• The first provision of Article 200 says it should be “as soon as possible”. The Constitution is silent on what exactly this phrase means. Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, in his 2020 judgment in the Keisham Megha Chandra Singh case, said a ‘reasonable time’ would mean 3 months.

Conclusion:

• The States have urged the court to interpret the phrase in the proviso and fix a time limit by which Governors should assent or return a Bill. The 1988 Sarkaria Commission report on Centre-­State relations had suggested consultation with the Governor while drafting the Bill and fixing a deadline for its disposal.