Presidential Reference | “If Governor can veto a bill at threshold, can block money bill as well”: Justice Narasimha

THE SUPREME COURT ON TUESDAY once again voiced its concern stating whether it was to adopt a hands off position if Bills are languishing for a long time with the Governor or the President for assent. Earlier the Court had pointed out that if the Governor, in exercise of his powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, withholds his assent without taking recourse to returning it to the State assembly with a message, or reserving it for consideration by the President, the bill would perish.

The top Court expressed its concern as senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the Maharashtra government, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai that the Union government can block any Bill passed by the State legislature, and the Supreme Court cannot question the Governor or the President as to why the Bill presented for assent was not being acted upon.  

Salve argued:

“The Governor is beyond the pale of judicial reviews. Governor cannot be asked’ why he did what he did’ and ‘no mandamus can be issued to him’. The Court can only ask what he did and not why he did.” 

Salve backed his position that the Union government can stall any Bill passed by the State legislature and the action or inaction of the Governor, after being presented with the Bill, cannot be gone into by the Court, stating that unlike USA and other countries, federalism under the Indian constitution was “limited”.

Terming as “uncharitable” the use of the word “veto” for the Governor’s decision to withhold the Bill, and noting that the court has no footprints in such a situation, Salve proposed that the impasse can be  resolved through the political process of consultation and building consensus.

Apparently not convinced by the position articulated by Salve, of insulating the Governor’s actions in exercise of Article 200 from judicial scrutiny, Chief Justice Gavai asked him about the sanctity of the Union List, State List, and the Concurrent List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 

Salve also referred to the concluding address of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar at the Constituent Assembly, where Ambedkar had said that while the Union government/State governments would work within the spheres allotted to them, the Union would have an overarching power in case of an emergency.

Making a distinction between the position of the President and the Governor – a nominee of the President, Salve argued that the President is bound by the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers, whereas it was not so in the case of the Governor.

When Salve argued that the use of word “may” instead of “shall: Article 200 reflected the independent powers of the Governor, Justice Narasimha referred  referring to the arguments advanced by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and observed that in that case the Governor could withhold assent to even Money Bill at the threshold itself.