The relationship between state governments and their respective governors has often been strained, with disputes arising in states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a Presidential Reference on the matter. The central government has, for the first time, presented its viewpoint in the ongoing legal battle. The Chief Justice highlighted that the Constitution’s framers envisioned a collaborative dynamic between governors and state administrations.
During the Supreme Court’s tenth day of proceedings, the central government argued on the extent of a governor’s authority concerning legislation, asserting that governors possess the power to block bills deemed unconstitutional and return them for reconsideration. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta disputed the arguments of the Punjab government, stating that the governor’s powers extend beyond simply approving a bill.
The central government clarified the process by which governors order reconsideration of legislation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that, when a governor returns a bill for reconsideration, they formally declare their withholding of assent. The scope of the reconsideration will be determined by the governor’s message, which is delivered along with the returned bill, as per Article 200, Clause 1.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further explained that bills sent back to the governor for approval after reconsideration within the same year will retain their original bill number. However, if the legislature reconsiders a bill in the subsequent year, a new bill number will be assigned.
The central government contested the Punjab government’s assertions. The central government clarified that a governor has no discretion other than to declare a bill invalid. The SG refuted the arguments of Punjab government’s lawyer, Arvind Datar, emphasizing that even if a bill is deemed invalid, the governor’s only option is to approve it. The SG presented some specific examples to support this point.
The central government stated that governors are empowered to block bills that are explicitly unconstitutional. SG Tushar Mehta, representing the center, argued before the SC that the court must exercise caution when interpreting constitutional provisions under Sections 200 and 201, taking into account potential future extreme and dangerous situations.
The central government posits that the Governor is an integral part of the Legislature. The central government refuted the claims of opposition states that the power of consent is executive in nature. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further stated that the governor’s consent is a crucial aspect of the legislative process, being semi-legislative or self-specific.
The claim by opposition states that the powers of consent are executive in nature is fundamentally wrong. However, the executive can assist in the creation of a bill, which can be presented before the legislature. Once the process is complete, the process is legislative in nature until consent is granted. This is why the governor is considered a part of the legislature.
Chief Justice’s observations on the matter. Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai mentioned that the Constitution’s framers envisioned a harmonious relationship between governors and state governments. CJI B.R. Gavai also stated that state governments were often included in the appointment of governors.
Understanding Presidential References. The Indian Constitution grants the President various powers, including the ability to issue direct orders to state and central governments, bypassing the Supreme Court. Article 143 of the Constitution outlines Presidential References. These are distinct from standard legal procedures. If the President believes a matter has legal or public significance, they can seek the Supreme Court’s counsel on any law or constitutional matter.
The Presidential Reference was initiated following the Supreme Court’s April 8th ruling on the Tamil Nadu governor case, which stated that the governor could not indefinitely withhold bills.