New Delhi: If governors are given the power to withhold a bill permanently without returning it to the state legislature, they could even sit on money bills that they are otherwise bound to approve, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday.
Such an interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution that governors have independent power to withhold a bill can lead to a "problematic" situation, said the bench which is considering a presidential reference on whether the SC can lay down timelines and procedures for the President and state governors.
The Centre argues that "the power of withholding stands on its own and the governor can withhold the Bill", Justice PS Narasimha remarked verbally. "Therefore, when you independently exercise the power of withholding, it is a little problematic ... There is a problem because with this power, even a money bill can be withheld. The proviso will not apply there. There is a big problem with that interpretation."
Speaking for the five-member bench, the judge pointed out that the proviso to Article 200 says that, except in the case of a money bill, a governor can return the bill to the assembly for reconsideration. "If independent power of the governor to withhold a bill is recognised, a money bill can also be straightaway withheld," he observed.
The bench also reiterated its concern whether the court would be "powerless" if a governor chose to withhold a bill passed by the state legislature, indefinitely. "Suppose a bill is passed in 2020 ... will the court be powerless if there is no consent even in 2025," it asked.
Appearing on behalf of the Madhya Pradesh government, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul said such logjams are best left to Parliament to decide. Counsels appearing for some other states argued that it is "disrespectful" to set timelines for the governors to decide on bills. "Justiciability does not apply to the President" and that "judicial review stands excluded" in the case of governors and President, they argued.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, at the last hearing had observed that it was sitting in an "advisory jurisdiction" in the matter and not in appeal over the judgement by a division bench which laid down the timelines.
"We will be expressing just a view on law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case," CJI Gavai had verbally told counsels for the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu who had raised preliminary objections to the President's reference on grounds of maintainability.
On May 15, in a rare move, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 (1) of the Constitution to send a reference to the SC following its April 8 ruling that set timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. In her reference, the President posed 14 questions to the top court and sought its opinion on whether such deadlines could be imposed judicially.
Article 143(1) of the Constitution allows the President to seek the SC's opinion in matters of legal and public importance.
Such an interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution that governors have independent power to withhold a bill can lead to a "problematic" situation, said the bench which is considering a presidential reference on whether the SC can lay down timelines and procedures for the President and state governors.
The Centre argues that "the power of withholding stands on its own and the governor can withhold the Bill", Justice PS Narasimha remarked verbally. "Therefore, when you independently exercise the power of withholding, it is a little problematic ... There is a problem because with this power, even a money bill can be withheld. The proviso will not apply there. There is a big problem with that interpretation."
Speaking for the five-member bench, the judge pointed out that the proviso to Article 200 says that, except in the case of a money bill, a governor can return the bill to the assembly for reconsideration. "If independent power of the governor to withhold a bill is recognised, a money bill can also be straightaway withheld," he observed.
The bench also reiterated its concern whether the court would be "powerless" if a governor chose to withhold a bill passed by the state legislature, indefinitely. "Suppose a bill is passed in 2020 ... will the court be powerless if there is no consent even in 2025," it asked.
Appearing on behalf of the Madhya Pradesh government, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul said such logjams are best left to Parliament to decide. Counsels appearing for some other states argued that it is "disrespectful" to set timelines for the governors to decide on bills. "Justiciability does not apply to the President" and that "judicial review stands excluded" in the case of governors and President, they argued.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, at the last hearing had observed that it was sitting in an "advisory jurisdiction" in the matter and not in appeal over the judgement by a division bench which laid down the timelines.
"We will be expressing just a view on law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case," CJI Gavai had verbally told counsels for the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu who had raised preliminary objections to the President's reference on grounds of maintainability.
On May 15, in a rare move, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 (1) of the Constitution to send a reference to the SC following its April 8 ruling that set timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. In her reference, the President posed 14 questions to the top court and sought its opinion on whether such deadlines could be imposed judicially.
Article 143(1) of the Constitution allows the President to seek the SC's opinion in matters of legal and public importance.
You may also like
Winning EuroMillions numbers LIVE: Full lottery results with Thunderball on Tuesday 26
Stuart Pebble dead: Grumpy Old Men creator dies aged 74 after cancer battle
Welspun moves NCLT against Lavasa's top bidder Valor
Meghan Markle admits how she dealt with backlash from viral twerking video
Jana Small Finance Bank set to merge investment and financial holding firms
