Governor can reserve bill passed again by assembly for president's consideration: SC

New Delhi, Nov 20 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the governor can reserve a bill for consideration of the president even in the second instance, when the bill is again sent by the state assembly to him whether in its amended or unamended form.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai unanimously held that under the first proviso of Article 200, the governor at the first instance has three options – to assent, reserve the bill for the consideration of the president, or withhold and return the bill with a message for reconsideration of the state legislature.

The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said the exercise of discretion by the governor in discharging his function at this first stage is essential to initiate the dialogic process between the constitutional functionaries.

"The first proviso cannot be read in a manner so as to condition the option of the Governor to reserve the Bill for President's consideration as well. Therefore, when the Bill is returned to the Governor, he is still left with two options – either to grant his assent, or to refer it to the President for his consideration. This power to reserve a Bill for the President's consideration, is irrespective of whether the Bill is returned by the legislature in its amended or unamended form," it said.

Analysing the provision, the bench said the second proviso of Article 200 reaffirms this exercise of discretion, and specifically lays out a situation wherein if "in his opinion" the governor finds that the Bill proposed may derogate from the powers of the high court or endanger its position as per the Constitutional scheme, assent should not be granted, and the same shall be reserved for the president's consideration.

The top court, while interpreting the options available to the governor under Article 200 after he has, at the first instance, exercised his discretion and chose to withhold a bill and return it to the state legislature with a message, said that the text of the first proviso to Article 200 through its phrasing "shall not withhold assent therefrom" clearly indicates that what was sought to be curtailed among the three options, was only the option to 'withhold'.

"The reading of the first proviso as canvassed by parties opposing the reference – that the Governor is left with only one option, i.e., to grant assent, upon receiving a Bill back from the legislature the second time is textually untenable. This would further militate against the content of the second proviso, which contemplates the President’s consideration specifically when a Bill may potentially affect the powers of the high court, and its position or function, within the constitutional scheme.

"Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the reading of Article 200, which recognises both options – to grant assent, or reserve the Bill for the President – further strengthens, and increases the potential for the dialogic and consultative process that our Constitution values at its core, rather than retracting from it," it said.

On federalism, the top court said the states are entitled to determine the legislative policy within the legislative spheres constitutionally allotted to them subject to the constitutional provisions and framework.

"Whatever be the description of Indian federalism, we think that it would be against the principle of federalism and a derogation of the powers of the State legislatures, to permit the Governor to withhold a Bill without following the dialogic process in the first proviso to Article 200," it said.

The bench said the first proviso initiating a constitutional conversation between the institution of the governor and the House (or Houses), and the option to reserve the bill for the consideration of the president under the substantive part of Article 200, exemplify the cooperative spirit of Indian federalism, and also bring out different facets of the checks-and-balances model that the Constitution has envisaged.

"A dialogic process, which has the potential to understand and reflect on conflicting or opposing perspectives, to reconcile and to move forward in a constructive manner, is an equally potent check-and-balance system that the Constitution has prescribed.

"Once this perspective is grasped, the persons who occupy various constitutional offices or institutions will also do well to ingrain in themselves that dialogue, reconciliation and balance, and not obstructionism is the essence of constitutionalism that we practice in this Republic," it said.

Article 200 empowers governors to act on bills passed by the state legislature by either granting assent, withholding assent, or reserving the bills for the president's consideration. They may also return a bill to the legislature with recommendations or for reconsideration.

The top court was answering the Presidential Reference in which President Droupadi Murmu has sought the opinion under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to know from the court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies. PTI MNL MNL KVK KVK