 |
|
The Supreme Court is currently engaged in a crucial deliberation concerning the extent of a Governor's authority in scrutinizing and approving Bills passed by state legislatures. This debate arises from a Presidential Reference, prompting the apex court to clarify the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial power, especially concerning the legality and repugnancy of Bills in relation to existing Central laws or the Constitution itself. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, presented a compelling argument asserting that a Governor's role is not akin to that of a judicial reviewer. Singhvi emphasized that the determination of whether a Bill contravenes constitutional principles or clashes with Central legislation rests squarely with the judiciary, not the Governor. This distinction is fundamental to maintaining the separation of powers and ensuring that legislative actions are subject to judicial oversight, preventing potential abuses of power by the executive branch. The core of Singhvi's argument centers on the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the options available to a Governor when presented with a Bill. These options include granting assent, withholding assent and returning the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, or reserving the Bill for the President's consideration. Singhvi argued that these options are interconnected and cannot be selectively exercised. Specifically, he contended that a Governor cannot simply withhold assent indefinitely without returning the Bill to the Assembly for further deliberation. To allow such a practice would effectively grant the Governor a veto power, undermining the legislative process and the will of the elected representatives. This interpretation aims to safeguard the principle of responsible government, where the executive branch is accountable to the legislature and cannot arbitrarily obstruct the passage of laws. A critical point of contention raised during the hearing was whether a Governor, having previously returned a Bill to the Assembly, retains the power to reserve it for the President's assent after the Assembly has re-passed the Bill without modifications. Singhvi firmly argued against this possibility, asserting that once a Bill has been re-passed by the Assembly, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent. He emphasized that the Governor's role in assessing repugnancy, if any, should be exercised at the initial stage, when the Bill is first presented. If the Governor deems the Bill repugnant to Central law or the Constitution, the appropriate course of action is to reserve it for the President's consideration under Article 200. However, after the Assembly has reaffirmed its legislative intent by re-passing the Bill, the Governor's discretion is significantly curtailed, and the obligation to grant assent becomes paramount. Singhvi further underscored that even when reserving a Bill for the President's consideration, the Governor must act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. This principle of acting on aid and advice is a cornerstone of the parliamentary system, ensuring that the executive branch operates under the guidance of the elected government. To allow a Governor to act independently, without consulting the Council of Ministers, would undermine the democratic process and create a situation where an unelected official could effectively override the decisions of the elected representatives. This aspect of Singhvi's argument highlights the importance of maintaining the balance of power between the Governor, the Council of Ministers, and the legislature.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, actively engaged with Singhvi's arguments, posing probing questions to clarify the nuances of gubernatorial power. One key question revolved around the interpretation of the phrase "the bill falls through," which was used in a previous judgment (Shamsher Singh) in relation to a Governor withholding assent. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had cited this judgment to argue that a Governor possesses a fourth option: withholding assent without returning the Bill, effectively killing the legislation. Singhvi vehemently disputed this interpretation, arguing that the phrase had been taken out of context and misinterpreted. He clarified that "the bill falls through" refers to the scenario where the Governor returns the Bill to the Assembly, and the Assembly subsequently fails to re-pass it. In such a case, the Bill lapses due to the legislature's inaction, not due to the Governor's independent veto power. Justice Narasimha echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the phrase "falls through" was potentially misleading and that the term "lapses" would be more accurate in describing the outcome. This exchange highlights the importance of precise legal terminology and the need to interpret judgments in their proper context to avoid misinterpretations that could distort the constitutional framework. The debate also extended to the issue of Money Bills, with Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Solicitor General Mehta suggesting that Article 200 does not treat Money Bills as a special category and that a Governor could potentially withhold assent even from a Money Bill. Singhvi strongly objected to this argument, asserting that it would fundamentally undermine the financial autonomy of the state legislature. He pointed out that Article 207, which requires the Governor's recommendation for the introduction of financial bills, was intended to prevent private members from introducing such bills and to ensure that only the State Government could propose financial legislation. Citing this provision to support the argument that a Governor could withhold assent from a Money Bill was, according to Singhvi, a misinterpretation of the Constitution and would effectively place the Governor in a "dominating position" akin to a "super-Chief Minister," encroaching upon the powers of the elected government. Singhvi characterized such an interpretation as potentially exceeding the constitutional bounds of the Governor's office and undermining the principles of responsible government and parliamentary democracy. The Solicitor General, however, clarified that he had not explicitly argued that a money bill can be withheld.
Furthermore, Dr. Singhvi challenged the examples presented by Solicitor General Mehta, which depicted extreme scenarios of patently unconstitutional laws passed by states (e.g., barring entry of persons from other states or granting special treatment to a particular class). Mehta had suggested that in such cases, the Governor could justifiably withhold assent or reserve the Bill for the President's consideration even after the Assembly had re-passed it. Singhvi dismissed these examples as "doomsday scenarios," arguing that constitutional adjudications should not be based on extreme and unlikely hypothetical situations. He emphasized that the judiciary is equipped to address such instances through judicial review, and the Governor's role should not be expanded to preemptively strike down legislation based on speculative concerns. To allow the Governor to act on such extreme assumptions would, according to Singhvi, create an imbalance of power and undermine the role of the judiciary as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional validity. In essence, Singhvi's arguments advocate for a limited and well-defined role for the Governor in the legislative process, emphasizing the primacy of the elected legislature and the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional principles. He argued against expanding the Governor's powers beyond their clearly defined constitutional boundaries, warning that such an expansion could undermine the principles of responsible government, parliamentary democracy, and the separation of powers. The Supreme Court's deliberation on this Presidential Reference is therefore of critical importance, as it will shape the future interpretation of Article 200 and determine the balance of power between the Governor, the state legislature, and the judiciary. The court's decision will have far-reaching implications for the functioning of state governments and the relationship between the Union and the states in India. The arguments presented by Dr. Singhvi and the responses from the Solicitor General highlight the complex and nuanced issues at stake, requiring careful consideration of constitutional principles, historical context, and practical implications. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly set a precedent for future disputes regarding the Governor's powers and responsibilities in the legislative process. The core of the discussion revolves around maintaining the delicate balance between the Governor's duty to uphold the Constitution and the elected legislature's mandate to enact laws that reflect the will of the people. The Supreme Court's task is to provide clarity and guidance on this critical constitutional issue, ensuring that the principles of democracy, federalism, and the separation of powers are preserved and protected.