Articles 200 & 201: Governor’s Assent to Bills

GS2 – Polity

Context

• The issue of Governor’s role in granting assent to State Bills has become a recurring constitutional controversy.
• Several States (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, Punjab) have accused their Governors of deliberately delaying assent or reserving Bills indefinitely for the President.
• The Supreme Court (2023–25) has repeatedly intervened, reminding Governors that they are bound by the Constitution and cannot “sit on Bills indefinitely.”

Constitutional Provisions

Article 200 – Assent to Bills

When a Bill passed by a State Legislature is presented to the Governor, the Governor has four options:

1. Assent → The Bill becomes law.
2. Withhold Assent → Effectively vetoes the Bill (rare in practice, often controversial).
3. Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) → The Legislature may reconsider. If re-passed, the Governor is constitutionally bound to give assent.
4. Reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration →
   • Mandatory in some cases, e.g., Bills derogating High Court powers.
   • Discretionary in other politically sensitive cases.

Implication: Governor is expected to act as a constitutional link between State and Union, not as a political veto point.

Article 201 – Bills Reserved for the President

• When a Bill is reserved, the President may:
  1. Give assent → Bill becomes law.
  2. Withhold assent → Bill fails.
  3. Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill) → Legislature may reconsider and re-pass, but again the President is not bound to assent.

Key Issue:

• The Constitution does not specify a time frame for the President to decide, leading to prolonged delays (sometimes years).
• This creates legislative deadlock in States, undermining the principle of representative government.

Issues Highlighted in Current Affairs

1. a) Delays in Governor’s Action

• Example: The Tamil Nadu NEET exemption Bill (2021) was kept pending by the Governor for over a year before being forwarded to the President.
• Example: In Kerala, Governor Arif Mohammad Khan reserved multiple University-related Bills, leading to legal battles.

1. b) Partisan Reservations

• Critics argue Governors use reservation powers selectively, aligning with Union Government interests.

1. c) Lack of Timelines

• Unlike the President (bound by Article 74 to act on Cabinet advice), Governors are not explicitly time-bound under Article 200.
• This ambiguity creates scope for misuse.

1. d) Judicial Interventions

• Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974): Governor must act on aid and advice of Council of Ministers.
• Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs Manipur (2020): SC said Governors cannot indefinitely delay decisions.
• SC hearings (2023–25): Strongly reminded Governors that “inaction is unconstitutional.”

Significance

• Federalism → Misuse of Articles 200–201 undermines cooperative federalism by allowing unelected Governors to stall elected governments.
• Democratic Mandate → Delays in assent negate the authority of legislatures chosen by the people.
• Separation of Powers → Creates tension between Union executive and State legislatures.
• Judicial Safeguards → Courts may step in to issue guidelines, but risk being drawn into political disputes.

Reform Proposals

• Time Frame for Assent → Introduce constitutional or statutory limits (e.g., 3 months) for Governors/President to act.
• Clarity on Reservation → Restrict discretionary reservation to exceptional cases.
• Strengthen Federal Spirit → Governors should act as neutral constitutional heads, not political appointees.
• SC Guidelines → Judicially enforceable directions to prevent indefinite stalling.