Supreme Court's Verdict Empowers Governor to Veto Bill, Leaving Elected State Government Devoid of Power

The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu concerning the Court's April ruling on timelines for President and Governors to decide on Bills. The case revolves around the power of Governors to withhold assent on bills passed by State legislatures and the question of judicial review.

Justice BR Gavai, leading the Court, has emphasised the importance of Governors declaring their reasoning for withholding assent on a bill. This, he stated, is crucial to ensure transparency and prevent the Governor from sitting over bills for an indefinite period, which could potentially stall the democratic process.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appointed to argue on behalf of the governors, outlined the four options available to a Governor under Article 200 when dealing with bills passed by a State legislature: assent, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration of the President, or send it back to the legislature. Mehta argued that the Governor, under Article 200 of the Constitution, can withhold assent to a bill, making it "fall through" with no option to send it back to the legislature.

However, Justice Surya Kant pointed out that the central point of debate would be around the meaning of 'withholding' - whether it is temporary or permanent. Justice Narasimha added that even when the Governor withholds the assent, the "political process" can knock on his door and he can send the bill back for reconsideration.

Mehta mentioned instances where a Governor can withhold assent, such as when a bill has provisions that are repugnant, may violate somebody's fundamental rights, or are not desirable according to the Governor. He also argued that the bill would fall through when the Governor withholds assent, making the question of judicial review far more important in that case.

The April ruling by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor must act within a reasonable time, and constitutional silence cannot be used to stall the democratic process. They also stated that Governors, being seasoned people with years of political experience or public service, should not abuse their power by withholding assent without reasonable grounds.

Among the questions referred are whether the Supreme Court can create procedural mechanisms in areas where the Constitution is silent, and whether imposing time limits encroaches upon the discretionary space constitutionally granted to the President and Governors. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani questioned the Supreme Court's April ruling, asking whether the Court can re-write the Constitution.

The Court is composed of Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar. The hearing is ongoing, and a decision is expected in due course. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in India.