PRESIDENT
ASSENT AND STATE BILLS - POLITY
News:
Kerala Moves SC Against
President Murmu for Withholding Assent to State Bills
What's
in the news?
●
The Kerala government petitioned the
Supreme Court challenging the actions of the Governor of Kerala and President
Murmu regarding assent to Bills passed by the state legislature.
Governor's
Role in Lawmaking:
Article
200:
●
Article 200 deals with the Governor’s
function in passing a Bill of the state legislature.
●
Under Article 200 of the Indian
Constitution, the Governor may
○
Grant assent
○
Withhold assent
○
Return for reconsideration by the
Legislature or
○
Reserve for the consideration of the
President any Bill passed by the State legislature and presented to him for
assent.
●
There is no time frame fixed in the Constitution for any of these functions.
Money
Bills and Article 200:
●
Article 200 enables the Governor to return
a Bill, that is not a Money Bill, with a message requesting the House or
Houses, if there is an upper chamber, to reconsider the Bill, or any provisions
and also consider introducing amendments he may recommend.
●
The House will have to reconsider as
suggested. If the Bill is passed again,
with or without changes, and presented for assent, “the Governor shall not
withhold assent therefrom”.
Powers
of High Court and Article 200:
●
The Governor shall reserve for the consideration of the President any Bill which in
the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the
powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by
this Constitution designed to fill.
Interpretation
of Article 200:
●
The Governor does not have discretion on
matters of the Assembly and is bound to
follow the advice of the ministerial Council even on matters where he/she might
be withholding assent. Going by this interpretation, the Governor will now
have to grant his assent to the Bill under question as mandated by Article 200
of the Constitution.
●
The framers of the Constitution envisaged
such a provision to accommodate any of
the following situations:
○
When the Council of Ministers feels that a
Bill has been hastily adopted or that it
requires changes, the Council may want to recall its Bill and accordingly
advise the Governor to return it.
○
If after a Bill is passed the Ministers
resign before the Bill gets the Governor’s assent, the new Ministry may not want to go ahead with the Bill and might
advise against assent being given. This was also noted by the Sarkaria
Commission on Union-State Relations.
Article
201:
●
Article 201 of the Indian Constitution
deals with provisions related to bills
reserved for the consideration of the President.
●
As per Article 201, when a Bill is
reserved by a Governor for the consideration of the President, the President
shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent
therefrom.
●
The President may also direct the Governor
to return the Bill, where the Bill is not a Money Bill, with a message.
●
When a Bill is so returned, the House or
Houses shall reconsider it accordingly within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of such message and, if it is again passed by the House or
Houses with or without amendment, it shall be presented again to the President.
●
There is no timeframe mentioned for the above provisions.
Interpretation
of Article 201:
●
Unlike Article 200 which explicitly mentions that the Governor shall not
withhold assent after a suggested reconsideration of the bill, Article 201 has
no such provisions mentioned.
●
This means that the Bill will become law
if the assent is given, but nothing can be done if the Bill is denied assent by
the President or if he makes no decision.
Recent
Arguments:
Kerala's
Arguments:
●
Governor of Kerala and President Murmu's
actions violate Article 200 by not acting "as soon as possible."
●
This undermines the state legislature and
its lawmaking function.
●
President Murmu withholding assent without
reasons violates Article 201 which requires a recommendation.
Examples
from Other States:
●
Tamil
Nadu: Governor withheld assent to Bills for over two years
and refused to appoint a minister chosen by the state government.
●
Telangana:
Former Governor Soundarajan withheld assent to Bills but gave assent shortly
before facing elections.
●
Punjab:
Governor refused assent due to alleged legal issues but didn't return the Bills
for reconsideration (later struck down by SC).
Current
Situation:
●
The Supreme Court has previously
criticised Governors for extended delays but hasn't provided a specific
timeline for decisions.
●
The Kerala case specifically asks the
court to address the lack of a timeline for Governors' decisions on Bills.