• UGI USER
  • Nov 26, 2023
  • 24 Likes
  • 0 Comments

SUPREME COURT’S RULING ON GOVERNOR ROLE

Why in News?

  • The Supreme Court, in a 27-page judgment, emphasized that the rejection of a Bill by a Governor does not imply its termination.
  • Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on behalf of a three-judge Bench, clarified that a law proposed by a State legislature persists even if the Governor withholds assent.

Options under Article 200:

  • Article 200 of the Constitution provides Governors with three options when presented with a Bill:
    • consent, 
    • withholding consent, or 
    • reserving the Bill for the President’s consideration.
  • The first proviso of Article 200 outlines that if a Bill is withheld (non-Money Bill), the Governor

must promptly return it to the House with suggestions or requests for reconsideration.

Mandatory Procedure for Withheld Consent:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor cannot let a Bill die after rejection; it must be sent back to the House for reconsideration.
  • Governor’s withholding of consent is linked with the mandatory return of the Bill to the legislature for further deliberation.

Governor’s Role in Legislature:

  • The court emphasized that the Governor, as an unelected head of State, is part of the legislature and is obliged to follow the constitutional regime.
  • The final decision on the Bill belongs to the legislature, and after re-passing by the House, the Governor is compelled to grant consent.

Historical Context and Constitutional Principles:

  • The judgment is based on a case involving the Punjab government against its Governor.
  • The ruling maintains the fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a parliamentary pattern of governance.

Removal of Veto Power:

  • The Supreme Court’s decision removes the unilateral veto power of Governors in a parliamentary democracy, aligning with the elected regime’s responsibility to run the state’s affairs.
  • The court’s intervention serves as a rebuke to Governors attempting to indefinitely delay action on legislative proposals.

The verdict settles the controversy surrounding the Governor’s role in the law-making process and ensures a time-bound decision-making process, preventing unwarranted delays.