Presidential Reference Hearing: SC Expresses Concern Over Union Govt's Interpretation of Article 200
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 26) expressed its concerns over the Union government's interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution that Governors have an independent power to withhold a Bill, without returning it to the State Legislative Assembly.
While hearing the Presidential reference on the issue of assent to bills, a Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vilkram Nath, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar said that in case such an interpretation is accepted, it meant that Governors can withhold money bills as well, which they are otherwise bound to approve, the Court orally remarked, reported LiveLaw.
The Court added that such a situation is "problematic".
"The Union says the power of withholding stands on its own and the Governor can withhold the Bill. Therefore, when you independently exercise the power of withholding, it is a little problematic. Because, at the threshold, the Governor withholds the Bill. 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. Assuming for a minute that it is permissible, even at the threshold, a Bill can be withheld,..." Justice Narasimha told senior advocate Harish Salve, who is representing the State of Maharashtra.
Justice Narasimha said 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.
Justice Narasimha added that if an independent power of the Governor to withhold a bill is recognised, "a money bill can also be straightaway withheld."
"How do you reconcile that a money bill can be rejected at the outset by the Governor by the substantive provision? He can return the Bill only if it is not a money Bill? How do you reconcile this?" said Justice Narasimha.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said that as per Article 207, a money bill can be introduced only with the proposal of the Governor, and therefore, the question of the Governor withholding a money bill does not arise since it is introduced with the Governor's recommendation.
Earlier, on August 20, the court had asked the Union government if elected State governments were at the mercy of the whims and fancies of Governors, who could fail Bills by merely withholding assent for them.
The hearing in the matter rises from a 14-point reference to the Supreme Court sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May for an opinion on some of its own powers.
The reference concerns the apex court’s landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, in which the Supreme Court set timelines for the president to act as per Article 201 of the constitution on the Bills which a governor has reserved for her assent. The Supreme Court had said that Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi’s move to reserve 10 Bills for the president’s assent was illegal.
This article went live on August twenty-seventh, two thousand twenty five, at nineteen minutes past eleven in the morning.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
