Recent Conduct of Governors
Context:
- Concerns over the actions of certain Governors are brought up in the Supreme Court’s ongoing hearings. The main problem that compelled State governments to file redressal requests with the court is the twisted way Raj Bhavan incumbents have harassed and obstructed elected regimes by abusing the lack of a deadline for giving assent to Bills.
Current patterns:
- What was the governor doing for three years, the court asked?Regarding R.N. Ravi, the governor of Tamil Nadu, it was highlighting the fact that he only resolved outstanding bills following the court’s criticism of the hearing’s delay.
- It appears that the Governor purposefully waited to take action until a government that was harmed went to court. During the hearing, there were some Q&A sessions concerning the ramifications of the Governor’s decision to not sign ten bills and the State Assembly’s response to pass the bills twice.
- According to the court’s first observations, there will be close examination of Article 200 of the Constitution, which governs the process of presenting bills enacted by the legislature to the governor for approval.
The more significant problem:
- If Mr. Ravi follows through on the court’s remark that the Governor cannot deny assent to the reenacted Bills, the current legislative standoff might be resolved quickly. But the story shouldn’t end there. A clear articulation of the law is necessary due to the greater issue.
- The discourse of the Constituent Assembly suggests that its intention was to limit the authority of endorsing or disapproving bills, or even bringing them back for reexamination, to the Council of Ministers’ recommendation alone. But in reality, a lot of governors have taken independent action, particularly when it comes to holding bills for the president’s consideration.
Section 200:
- In order to prevent reluctant governors from taking advantage of these grey areas, the Supreme Court must now render a ruling that is authoritative. Additionally, as indicated in the first proviso to Article 200, it must be made clear whether “withholding assent” constitutes a final act of rejection of a bill or whether other action is required, such as returning the bill with a message for the House to reconsider.
- According to established Indian law, a governor who announces that he or she will not be signing a measure must state why they are refusing it. As a high constitutional authority, the governor is not allowed to act arbitrarily.
- a Supreme Court constitution bench in Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. Union Of India and Anr stated that the Governor’s decision of rejection could be overturned as unconstitutional if the grounds for refusal reveal extraneous or mala fide considerations or beyond vires.
- According to Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, “a bill shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President” after it has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by both Houses of the Legislature of the State.
- The clause prohibits governors from refusing to sign a bill that they had returned for further study and that the legislature had since reapproved.
- The problem has also brought attention to constitutional difficulties surrounding governors’ roles. Sections that grant governors discretion they were never supposed to have compromise the “aid and advice” clause, which is the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy. Such clauses require careful re evaluation.
Way Forward:
- Nominal heads or ‘rubber stamps’ do not follow this practice when refusing assent (eg USA, UK). The Constitution occasionally offers a way around a legislature-passed bill’s inability to become law notwithstanding a signatory’s objection. To break this constitutional impasse, the Indian Parliament ought to look into the governor’s position in this situation.
