Discretionary Powers of the Governor
Context:
The Supreme Court recently gave its opinion on a Presidential Reference regarding the timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies.
The Court clarified several constitutional questions regarding Article 200 and the scope of judicial intervention
Governor's Discretionary Powers (Article 200):
When a Bill is presented under Article 200, the Governor has four options:
Grant assent.
Withhold assent.
Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President
Return the Bill (if it is not a Money Bill) to the legislature with comments.
The Governor enjoys discretion in this matter and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding on the fate of a Bill under Article 200.
Key Supreme Court Observations:
Justiciability:
The discharge of the Governor's functions under Article 200 is generally not justiciable.
However, in cases of glaring circumstances of indefinite inaction the Court has limited power to issue a mandamus directing the Governor to decide within a reasonable time
Article 361 does not offer an absolute bar to judicial review.
Actions can be challenged on grounds of mala fides (bad faith) or being ultra vires (beyond legal power)
Deemed Assent:
The Court ruled that the concept of deemed assent (assuming a Bill is passed if the Governor sits on it) is impermissible
Article 142 Limitations:
The Supreme Court's extraordinary powers under Article 142 cannot be used to substitute the constitutional powers of the Governor or President, nor can they be used to create a law of deemed assent
Timelines:
While no rigid timeline can be prescribed for the President or Governor, they are constitutionally expected to act within a reasonable timeframe.