Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr., has held that the Governor has to return the bill to the legislature for consideration, if he decides to withhold assent to a Bill.

What was the Background of The State of Punjab v Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr. Case?

• On 22^nd February 2023, the Council of Ministers of the Government of Punjab forwarded a recommendation to the Governor of Punjab seeking the summoning of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session commencing on 3 March 2023.
• The Governor’s refusal to do so, on the grounds that he was seeking legal advice, led to the institution of a petition before the Supreme Court on 25^th February 2023.
• Following the decision of the Court, the Sixteenth Punjab Vidhan Sabha was summoned on 3 March 2023.
• During the course of the session, the Vidhan Sabha passed four Bills, namely:
  • The Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill 2023
  • Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) (Amendment) Bill 2023
  • Punjab Universities Law (Amendment) Bill 2023
  • Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill 2023
• No action was taken by the Governor on these Bills.
• The seven Bills which have been kept pending by the Governor including the three Money Bills be processed in accordance with law.
• Aggrieved by the inaction of the Governor, the State of Punjab invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• By disposing the petition, the Supreme Court stated that the governor must act in a manner consistent with the provisions of Article 200 of the COI.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that if the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200 of COI, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. In other words, the power to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200 of COI must be read together with the consequential course of action to be adopted by the Governor under the first proviso.
• The Court further states the Governor, as an unelected Head of State, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers. However, this power cannot be used to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislatures. If the Governor decides to withhold assent to a Bill, then he has to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration.

What is Article 200 of COI?

About:

• This Article deals with the assent to bills. It states that—

When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it 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:

Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom:

Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but 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.

Case Law:

• In State of Telangana v. Secretary to Her Excellency the Hon’ble Governor for the State of Telangana & Anr. (2023), the Supreme Court observed that the expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities.”
  • The Constitution evidently contains this provision bearing in mind the importance which has been attached to the power of legislation which squarely lies in the domain of the state legislature. The Governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever.