CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF GOVERNOR IN INDIA
Let us first see the provision.
Article 154 in Constitution of India
- Executive power of State
(1) The executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.
(2) Nothing in this article shall–
(a)be deemed to transfer to the Governor any functions conferred by any existing law on any other authority; or
(b)prevent Parliament or the Legislature of the State from conferring by law functions on any authority subordinate to the Governor.
Now we go to next Article 175
- Right of Governor to address and send messages to the House or Houses
(1)The Governor may address the Legislative Assembly or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, either House of the Legislature of the State, or both Houses assembled together, and may for that purpose require the attendance of members.
(2)The Governor may send messages to the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State, whether with respect to a Bill then pending in the Legislature or otherwise, and a House to which any message is so sent shall with all convenient dispatch consider any matter required by the message to be taken into consideration.
- Assent to Bills
When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President:
Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the . House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom:
Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill.
Comments:
Do you notice there is no time limit provided within which a Governor has to sign a Bill. Why?
Constituent Assembly on Signing of Bill: This issue was discussed in detail in the Constituent Assembly. Following are excerpts
A detailed discussion was held in the Constituent Assembly. I reproduce below the excerpt of the discussion and why there is no provision for time limit in this Article within which a Governor has to sign the Bill.
“Prof. Shibban Lal Sakesena : Mr. President, Sir, I am very sorry I cannot agree with the amendment proposed by Dr. Ambedkar. The original proviso to article 175 said “Provided that where there is only one House of the Legislature and the Bill has been passed by that House, the governor may, in his discretion, return the Bill together with a message requesting that the House will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will reconsider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House shall reconsider it accordingly and if the Bill is passed again by the House with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom.”
So, in the proviso as it originally stood, the governor could send a Bill back with a message only when there was one House of the Legislature, but here in the new proviso even if there are two Houses, the Assembly and the Council in a State, even then the governor is given the power to return a Bill with his message. We have jut now had a long discussion over the powers of the Legislative Council. the whole thing under the new proviso will come to this. suppose a Bill is passed by the Assembly. It will go to the Upper House. It takes some time to be sent to the Upper House and then about two months in the Upper House. The Bill may be amended there. Thereafter the amended Bill comes back to the Assembly. the Assembly will then discuss it. A month may be takenover this. Then again it is sent back to the Council and there it will be considered again for about a month, so that on the whole it will be considered again for about a month, so that on the whole it will take about six months after it first becomes law. Now, power is given to the governor to return the Bill with a message. No time limit is given; how long he will take to return the Bill is not mentioned. So, if this proviso is accepted, what it will meanis this: that any contentious legislation will again go to Assembly and then to Council and it may take another six months in all that and so the legislation may be held back, if the Governor is not inclined to help. I think that the original proviso is much better. In those provinces where there is only one House, where the safeguard of a Second chamber is not there, we may give the governor the power to return a Bill, but where there is already a Council where the Bill has been again discussed threadbare when every aspect of it has been examined thoroughly, the Governor should not have the power to send back a Bill. I think this is very reactionary and no quick legislation will be possible under this proviso. I therefore think that theoriginal proviso to article 175 is much better than the one which has now been moved. I completely disagree with my Friend, M. Brajeshwar Prasad, who seems to favour everything which gives power to the governor and the Council. He wants that the Governor should have power to hold up any legislation.
Mr. President : The question is :
“That for the proviso to article 175 the following proviso be substituted:-
‘Provided that the Governor may, as son as possible after the presentation to the bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a passage requesting that the House or House will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions, thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message, and when a Bill is so returned the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the governor shall not withhold assent therefrom.”
Recent Judgement of Supreme Court THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR where time limit is framed.
Question arises:
1. Does it amount to an amendment of the constitution? If yes, is this Judgment binding?
2. Is the ratio laid down in the said Judgment affects the substratum of the constitution and is contrary to the full bench judgment of Supreme Court itself passed in the matter of Keshwanand Bharati Vs UOI in which it is held by the full Bench of Supreme Court that basic structure cannot be changed by the Parliament. The Supreme Court of India first applied the doctrine in the case State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara in 1951.
So, the Judgment of three- judges bench under consideration here changes the substratum of the constitution?
The text of Judgment is not available at the time of writing this blog. After reading the entire Judgment Government may decide to challenge this Judgment before 5 Judges Bench
Conclusion:
It is true that a Bill cannot be withheld by governor for indefinite period. But setting a time limit also amounts to an amendment of the constitution.
This issue is critical and needs to be debated and argued,
Shruti Desai
9th April 2025
Post a comment