The Supreme Court, in its opinion on a Presidential Reference, has clarified that a Governor may reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration even after it has been re-passed by the State Legislature. Learn the constitutional reasoning behind Article 200, key judicial observations, and the significance of this landmark interpretation.
Introduction
In a significant constitutional clarification, the Supreme Court of India has held that a Governor retains the authority to reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration even after the State Legislature re-enacts it following the Governor’s initial return. This interpretation came in response to a Presidential Reference under Article 143, prompted by concerns surrounding the Tamil Nadu Governor’s handling of certain re-passed Bills.
The Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, addressed fourteen queries pertaining to the scope of gubernatorial powers under Articles 200 and 201.
President Murmu Invokes Article 143: A Landmark Constitutional Reference to the Supreme Court
Key Constitutional Clarification on Article 200
The Court analysed the wording of the first proviso to Article 200, which states that the Governor “shall not withhold assent” once a Bill is re-passed by the Legislature. According to the Bench, this limitation applies only to the option of withholding assent—not to the option of reserving the Bill for the President’s consideration.
The Court emphasised that upon the Bill’s return to the Governor after reconsideration, two options still remain:
- Grant assent, or
- Reserve the Bill for the President.
Crucially, the Court noted:
The prohibition on “withholding” does not curtail the Governor’s constitutional authority to “reserve” the Bill, even in the second round.
Why the Power to Reserve Still Exists
The Bench explained that this interpretation serves as a vital constitutional safeguard. When the Legislature re-passes a Bill—potentially with amendments—the Governor is uniquely positioned to examine whether the revised version raises concerns involving:
- Federal structure
- Inter-State relations
- Matters requiring Presidential scrutiny
The Court stated that the Governor’s decision-making at this stage is not merely procedural; it is an essential constitutional function designed to preserve federal balance.
Rejection of the Opposing Interpretation
Some argued that once the Legislature re-passes a Bill, the Governor must compulsorily give assent. The Court dismissed this view on two grounds:
- Inconsistency with the text of Article 200: The provision explicitly limits only the power to “withhold,” not the power to “reserve.”
- Conflict with the second proviso to Article 200: This proviso allows reservation of Bills affecting High Court powers. To eliminate the Governor’s ability to reserve re-passed Bills would contradict this clear constitutional mandate.
The Court concluded that recognising the Governor’s two available options—assent or reservation—supports the Constitution’s design of dialogue, scrutiny, and federal consultation, rather than reducing it.
Distinguishing Articles 200 and 201
The Bench also clarified that Article 200 (Governor’s powers) and Article 201 (President’s powers) operate differently:
- Article 201 does not contain the phrase “shall not withhold assent.”
- Article 201 imposes a six-month limit for the Legislature to reconsider a Bill once returned by the President.
Under Article 200, there is no such time limit. These distinctions reinforce that the Governor’s powers under Article 200 cannot be equated with those of the President under Article 201.
Departure from Earlier View in the Tamil Nadu Case
The Court explicitly departed from a prior two-judge bench ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which had held that a Governor could not reserve Bills once re-passed by the Assembly. The five-judge bench clarified that such a reading was constitutionally incorrect and overly restrictive.
Conclusion
This landmark opinion brings much-needed clarity to India’s constitutional framework regarding gubernatorial powers. By reaffirming the Governor’s authority to reserve re-enacted Bills for Presidential consideration, the Supreme Court has strengthened the federal balance and ensured that legislative processes remain subject to constitutional checks.
The decision marks a significant moment in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding executive-legislative relations in the States.
Supreme Court Questions Governor’s Powers Under Article 200: What Students Should Know
