GOVERNOR'S ASSENT TO STATE LAWS 

2. Conflict Over Governors' Assent to Bills

• In the ongoing conflict between states governed by opposition parties and their Governors appointed by the President on the Centre's advice, a recent development has emerged.
• Over the past year, several states, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Punjab, have taken legal recourse by approaching the Supreme Court regarding Governors withholding assent to Bills for extended periods.
• This situation underscores a larger issue concerning the balance of powers and the functioning of state legislatures within India's federal structure.

3. Governor's Role in Lawmaking

• Article 200 of the Constitution delineates the role of the Governor in the legislative process. After a Bill has been passed by the state legislature, it must be presented to the Governor. Subsequently, the Governor holds three options: to give assent to the Bill, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for consideration by the President.
• In cases where assent is withheld, Article 200 allows the Governor to return the Bill to the legislature, accompanied by a message requesting reconsideration of the Bill or specific provisions. If the Bill is passed again by the legislature, with or without amendments, and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor is obligated to grant assent.
• However, the absence of a stipulated timeline in the article has led to ambiguity and disputes. Governors have frequently withheld assent to Bills for prolonged periods, leaving them and the state legislature in a state of uncertainty. This lack of clarity has prompted states to seek intervention from the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

4. President's Role in the Legislative Process

• Article 201 of the Constitution outlines the role of the President in the legislative process, particularly when a Bill is sent for consideration after being passed by a state legislature.
• If a Bill is sent to the President for consideration, the President can choose to either give assent or withhold assent, as specified in Article 201.
• In cases where assent is withheld, the President requests the Governor to return the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration.
• The state government then has a period of six months to reconsider the Bill; failing to do so results in the Bill lapsing.
• If the Bill is reconsidered and passed once again by the state legislature, it must be sent back to the President for assessment.
• Unlike the Governor, the President is not obliged to give assent when reviewing the reconsidered Bill.
• This scenario represents the only instance where state governments do not have the final say in their own lawmaking process, as the decision ultimately rests with the President.

5. Issues Raised by the Kerala Government

The Kerala government has raised significant concerns regarding the actions of Governor Khan and President Murmu, terming them as "manifestly arbitrary" actions that violate fundamental rights and constitutional provisions.

• The petition filed by the Kerala government argues that the actions of Governor Khan and President Murmu are "manifestly arbitrary," indicating unreasonable and irrational decision-making. This characterization points to a violation of the right to equality, as such actions lack justification and fairness.
• The Kerala government's petition asserts that the decision to keep Bills pending without making a prompt decision violates Article 200 of the Constitution. The provision mandates that the Governor should decide on Bills "as soon as possible" after presentation. By not adhering to this requirement, the Governor's actions are seen as undermining the functioning of the state legislature and rendering it ineffective.
• The petition further argues that the prolonged withholding of assent by the Governor has subverted the functioning of the state legislature, rendering it ineffective and serving no practical purpose. This challenges the essence of legislative processes and the role of the Governor in the lawmaking procedure.
• Regarding President Murmu's decision to withhold assent to four Bills without providing reasons, the Kerala government contends that this action violates Article 201 of the Constitution. Article 201 stipulates that the President should return a Bill with recommended amendments if the assent is withheld, emphasizing the need for transparency and reasons for such decisions.

6. Governors' Actions and State Governments' Responses

Several states have encountered challenges related to Governors' actions in withholding assent to Bills and other matters, leading to disputes and legal interventions.

• Tamil Nadu's Experience: In November last year, the Supreme Court expressed concern over Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi withholding assent to 10 Bills enacted by the state legislature, some pending since January 2020. This action was criticized for its prolonged nature and lack of reasons provided. Additionally, disputes between Tamil Nadu's DMK government and Governor Ravi have been ongoing, including disagreements over ministerial appointments.
• Telangana's Grievance: Similarly, the Telangana government approached the Supreme Court in March 2023 due to former Governor Tamilisai Soundarajan's refusal to give assent to 10 Bills passed by the legislative assembly. Although Soundarajan eventually gave her assent, the delay and disputes highlighted tensions between the state government and the Governor's office.
• Legal Perspectives and Court Interventions: The issue of elected governments being subject to Governors' decisions, particularly in opposition-led states like Telangana. Despite legal arguments and requests for court directions, the Supreme Court refrained from passing detailed orders, emphasizing the constitutional intent behind timely decision-making as per Article 200.
• Political Dynamics and Future Implications: It's notable that Soundarajan, previously involved in assent disputes, is now a BJP candidate for the Lok Sabha elections. This political context adds complexity to the relationship between state governments and Governors, highlighting the ongoing challenges and potential implications for governance and constitutional principles.

7. Governor's Authority in Withholding Assent to Bills

• In November 2023, the Supreme Court deliberated on the issue of whether a Governor could withhold assent to Bills passed by the state legislature if they believed the session where the Bills were passed was convened illegally.
• This matter arose from Punjab, where Governor Banwarilal Purohit refused to give assent to four Bills passed by the Punjab Assembly, citing legal advice indicating a breach of law and procedure in their passage. Despite this, the Bills were not returned to the Assembly for reconsideration.
• The Supreme Court ruled that Governors do not possess the authority to obstruct the regular process of lawmaking by state legislatures.
• It clarified that the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 implies that Governors cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills without any justification.
• The court emphasized that if a Governor chooses to withhold assent, they must adhere to the procedure outlined in the first proviso of Article 200, which involves returning the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration.
• While the court outlined the responsibilities of Governors in the lawmaking process, it refrained from specifying a definitive timeline for Governors to make decisions on Bills.
• This omission has prompted the Kerala government to approach the Supreme Court seeking clarification on the issue.

8. The Way Forward

Addressing the challenges related to the Governor's assent requires a multi-dimensional approach that balances constitutional mandates, legal clarity, political responsibility, and public participation. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders and judicious use of constitutional mechanisms are key to ensuring robust and accountable governance in the legislative domain.