Governor’s Powers CLARIFIED: Supreme Court answers 14 questions referred by President Draupadi Murmu

New Delhi: In a major verdict regarding the legislative interaction between Governors and state governments, the Supreme Court shared its opinion on President Draupadi Murmu’s reference over the assent to bills by the Governor. The opinion of the top court addresses as many as 14 questions pertaining to law referred to it by the President. The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court stated that Governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely, adding that judiciary cannot set strict deadlines for constitutional authorities.

Here Is A Breakdown Of The 14 Questions And Their Answers

What are the constitutional options a Governor has when a Bill, under Article 200 of the Constitution, is presented to him?

Under the Article, the Governor has three specific options – to grant assent, to reserve the Bill for the review of the President or to hold the approval and return the Bill to the legislature, instructing a reconsideration.

The Court stated that the Governor has no option to “withhold assent simpliciter” which means that the Governor cannot refuse to sign a Bill and intentionally make it pend. If a governor wants to hold the approval, he/she must return the Bill to the House.

Does the Governor have to follow the Council of Ministers’ advice when making decisions under Article 200?

The answer is No. Under Article 163 of the Constitution, a Governor should act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where Constitution specifically allows them to use their own discretion. The court stated that the Governor has the power of discretion and is not bound by the Cabinet’s advice. The five-judge bench gave a reason that if Governors were bound by the Cabinet they are unable to return a bill for review because no government would advise against its own legislation.

Can the Governor’s use of constitutional discretion under Article 200 be reviewed by courts?

Courts cannot review the wisdom of the decision given by the Governor. However, the Court stated that “prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction” can be judicially reviewed. If a Governor holds an important bill, the court can direct them to act.

Does Article 361 completely prevent judicial review of a Governor’s actions under Article 200?

The answer is No. Under Article 361, President and Governors enjoy personal immunity. It simply means that they are not answerable to any court for the performance of their duties. The top court also highlighted that the Article protects an individual, but it does not protect the “office” of the Governor from judicial scrutiny.

Can the courts set deadlines for the Governor to act under Article 200?

The answer is No. Overruling its April judgement which stated the Governor was bound to act on a bill within three months, it stated that since Article 200 uses the elastic phrase “as soon as possible” it is not right for the judiciary to prescribe rigid deadlines.

Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 justiciable?

The answer is No. Under Article 201, which comes into effect when Bills reserved by the Governor for President’s review, the President’s decision to approve or hold a state Bill is a matter of judicial review.

Can courts set deadlines for the President when acting under Article 201?

The Answer is No. A top authority, like a Presiden,t cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines when dealing with a Bill.

Can a President seek advice from the Supreme Court under Article 143 when a Governor holds a Bill?

The answer is No. Under Article 143, President is free to consult the Supreme Court on questions regarding law.

Can the Governor’s or President’s decisions be reviewed by courts before a law is enacted? And can courts examine the provisions of a Bill itself?

No. the top court stated that judicial review applies only to “laws”, not on “Bills” as they are proposed legislation.

Can the exercise of the constitutional power be substituted under Article 142?

No. under Article 142, Supreme Court has the power to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice.”

Can a state legislature’s Bill become a law without the Governor’s assent?

The answer is no. A Bill cannot become a law without the approval of the Governor or President if it is under reserved process.

Must every Bench first determine if issues before it raise questions of law that need to be sent to a five-judge Bench under Article 145(3)?

The Court refused to answer this question. Under Article 145(3), a major interpretation of the Constitution be heard by the bench of at least five judges.

Is Top Court’s power under Article 142 limited to procedural law or it can pass orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive?

The Court stated that the question is too broad to answer. The Article 142 cannot be utilised to change or override constitutional provisions.

Does Constitution prevent the Top Court from using any jurisdiction other than Article 131 to settle disputes between the Union and the States?

The Court declined to answer this question.