Guv’s discretion can’t override constitutional provisions: SC
SC on Monday reserved its verdict on the matter, setting the stage for a landmark ruling that could redefine the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial authority
The Supreme Court on Monday underscored that a governor’s inherent powers cannot override constitutional provisions, expressing a “prima facie” view that withholding assent to a bill requires its return to the state legislature, not subsequent referral to the President at the governor’s discretion.
A bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these observations while hearing the Tamil Nadu government’s plea against governor RN Ravi’s actions to withhold assent and, in some instances, refer bills to the President years after their enactment.
The court scrutinised the governor’s authority under Article 200 of the Constitution, questioning whether a governor, after withholding assent, could later reserve the bill for Presidential consideration.
The Tamil Nadu government, through senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson, have contended that this practice allowed the Governor to act as a “superlative authority” over the state legislature, effectively undermining the legislative process.
After hearing the two sides, the Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on the matter, setting the stage for a landmark ruling that could redefine the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial authority. This case has broader implications, particularly amid growing tensions between Raj Bhavans and elected governments in several non-BJP-ruled states. Similar disputes have emerged in Punjab, Kerala and Telangana, with the Supreme Court intervening to ensure governors expedite decision-making processes.
During the day-long hearing, the bench engaged in an intense exchange with attorney general R Venkataramani, representing the governor’s office, over the constitutional soundness of withholding assent without communication and later forwarding the bill to the President.
“If the governor were not to send it back and refer it to the President after withholding it for years, is it not inconsistent with the constitutional provision?” the bench asked. It pointed out that such a practice would defeat the very purpose of the procedural options available under Article 200, stressing the governor’s duty to either grant assent, return the bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President, but not to indefinitely withhold it.
Referring to the prolonged delay in the governor’s decision-making, the bench remarked: “He withholds it but doesn’t say anything to the state. If he says so, and the state sends it back, then he doesn’t have a say. What’s happening here is that he first withholds it for years, doesn’t send it back to the state for two or three years, and one fine day, he decides to send it to the President.”
The AG defended the governor’s actions, arguing that once a bill is withheld, it falls for all practical purposes and does not require further reconsideration. However, the bench found this argument contradictory, stating: “If the bill has to fall because the governor has withheld the assent, how does he then forward that fallen bill to the President for further consideration?”
The court also questioned the lack of formal communication from the governor regarding objections to the bills. “Show us one communication where he has raised objections about the bill not being in compliance with UGC regulations or other issues that were flagged,” the bench demanded. The AG admitted: “There was no communication after the bill was passed.”
The court noted that if the governor had written to the state earlier, it was possible that the state government would have reconsidered the bill. “If the governor doesn’t express his objections, what is it that the state legislature reconsiders?” asked the bench, emphasising that legislative reconsideration cannot be an empty formality.
The bench also acknowledged the governor’s crucial role within the constitutional framework but noted that his powers must align with constitutional mandates. “We acknowledge that the governor has a very important role in our Constitution. Undoubtedly, the proviso also expects the governor to make himself very clear to the House,” it observed.
Senior advocate Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, criticised the repeated invocation of “discretion” to justify the governor’s conduct. “Repeated emphasis on discretion would violate the constitutional intent. The governor has discretion only in the first instance when the bill is sent to him, but once his action travels into any of the provisos under Article 200, he ceases to have any discretion,” Singhvi argued.
Dwivedi, also appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the governor’s discretionary powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions. “Governors cannot act as superlative authorities over state legislatures,” he said, pointing out that similar phraseology in Article 111 requires the President to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers when dealing with Parliament’s bills.
The court also questioned the implications of referring bills to the President. “We want to know what the President is expected to do now that the bill has been referred?” the bench asked.
Dwivedi responded, “If the reference is itself bad, that question would not arise.”
The bench further inquired: “If the reference isn’t bad?” Dwivedi replied that even the President had withheld assent in this instance.