Governor can’t send re-adopted Bill to President after withholding assent: SC

The bench said if the Governor exercises the option to withhold assent to a Bill, he has to send it back to the Assembly, that he cannot simply withhold assent and retain the Bill.

It made these remarks after it was pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor had withheld assent but not returned the Bills to the Assembly and referred them for the consideration of the President after the Assembly re-enacted them.

“There are three options for the Governor under the substantive part of Article 200 (which deals with the Governor’s power to deal with a Bill presented by the Assembly). He can assent to the Bill or he can withhold assent or he can reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. They are all alternatives. In this case… Governor… withholds assent. Once he withholds assent, there is no question of then again referring it to the President,” the bench said.

AG Venkataramani said, “That will be an open question. Probably one will have to look into that question.”

The CJI said, “He (Governor) can’t. He has to follow one of the three options… When he withholds assent, he can’t then say I am referring it to the President. Once he withholds assent, he can’t stall the Bill there… The proviso (to Article 200) does not give him a fourth option.”

“Otherwise, what will happen is this. The moment he withholds assent and he says he is not bound to send it to the Assembly, he can then stultify the Bill completely at the level of the Governor,” he said.

“The President holds an elected office and, therefore, a much wider power is conferred on the President very, very advisably by the Constitution. The Governor, as a nominee of the Union government, must exercise one of the options specified in the substantive part of Article 200. In this case, the Governor said, I withhold the assent. One he withholds assent… it’s not your case that the Assembly session (which re-enacted the Bills) was not correctly held. Once the Assembly then passes the Bill, then you can’t say now I am reserving it for the President,” the CJI said.

Venkataramani contended it “need not to be so…Where the Governor thinks he has some message to be sent to the Assembly, he is not withholding his assent at all. He is giving a message, he is making a recommendation: please consider the Bill with these recommendations”.

“The House says we disregard your recommendation, we don’t accept your recommendation. Then the Bill comes back to the Governor. Then he has no option. This is not a case where he is asking the Assembly to consider a recommendation or a message. He simply said, I am withholding my assent. When assent is withheld, the Bill is not technically sent back to the Assembly for reconsideration,” the AG said.

The bench said it will examine his contention when it hears the matter next.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, said, “This is actually flagrant. Under Your Lordship’s proceedings, how can the Governor think of doing it? This is constitutional obstinacy of the worst kind while the matter is pending.”

With the bench fixing the matter for further hearing, he said the Bills in question should not be processed by the President’s office in the meantime.

“They should not create a situation of referring it to the President and the President passes an order and then again we have to amend (the petition) it and the whole thing goes on. Let it not be processed in the President’s office,” Singhvi urged the bench.

The bench, however, declined to pass any direction on the request, saying “They know they are already here.”