Why Does India Have Governors? What SC Said On Their Limited Powers | Explained

Article 143 describes the power of the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on important questions of law or fact.

What Did SC Say On The Powers Of President And Governors?

The Supreme Court bench defined the contours of the powers of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution.

Article 201 lays down the procedure when a bill passed by state legislature is reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President of India. It says when a bill is reserved by a Governor for the consideration of the President, the President shall declare that he either assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent.

The bench observed that the functions of President under Article 201 are amenable to judicial review. It reasoned that while there is no political hue to the limited discretion conferred upon the Governor, “the grant of assent under Article 201 has an element of political hue by virtue of the fact that the President under Article 201 has been given the prerogative to decide whether the grant of assent in certain cases would be desirable or not".

The Bench underlined that the President does not have absolute veto when it comes to his function under Article 201 and has to choose whether to grant assent or not.

The court said the President is required to take a decision on the bills in three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned state.

The Supreme Court clarified that in cases where a bill has been reserved because it involves questions of Constitutional validity, the executive should not assume the role of the courts in determining the vires of a bill and should, as a matter of practice, refer such question to the Supreme Court under Article 143.

“We are of the considered view that although the option to refer a Bill to this Court under Article 143 may not be mandatory, yet the President, as a measure of prudence, ought to seek an opinion under the said provision in respect of Bills that have been reserved for the consideration of the President on grounds of perceived unconstitutionality," the Supreme Court said.

Why Is This In News?

Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi withheld 10 bills, delaying action under Article 200. When pushed by the court in an earlier round of litigation, Ravi referred two of the 12 bills to the president for her assent and returned 10 to the state legislative assembly without giving assent. When the 10 bills were passed again in the Assembly, he referred all of them to the president for her assent.

The Tamil Nadu government challenged this, citing constitutional violations and governance disruption.

The Supreme Court termed the Tamil Nadu Governor’s referral of re-enacted Bills to the President as “erroneous in law".

The Evolution Of Governor’s Office In India

During the British rule, the enactment of the Government of India (GoI) Act of 1858 brought about a new administrative framework in which the Governor, as an agent of the British Crown, operated under the general supervision of a higher authority titled as Governor General.

Even after the enactment of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, the Governor remained central to the provincial administration in the country and continued to wield significant authority. Subsequently, the GoI Act of 1935 brought in provincial autonomy and formally required the governor to act on the advice of the ministers. The law still safeguarded the discretionary powers of the governor such as vetoing a Bill passed by a legislative council.

Around Independence, the Commonwealth India Bill of 1925, the Nehru Report of 1928 and the Constitution of Hindustan Free State Act stressed on retaining the office of the governor, as per a report by The Hindu.

While in the early days, the Constituent Assembly leaned towards having an elected governor. As the framing of the Constitution got completed, there was an increasing support for having the governor nominated by the president.

What Are The Discretionary Powers Of The Governor?

Article 163 states that the governor shall exercise his functions on the aid and advise of a council of ministers headed by the chief minister “except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion."

When the discretionary powers of the governor were discussed by the Constituent Assembly, BR Ambedkar said the discretion was of limited nature and could be exercised only within the parameters of the constitutional provisions, as per The Hindu report.

However, when the discussion was held on Article 200, Ambedkar himself moved an amendment on July 30, 1949 to remove the expression ‘in his discretion’ from the Article. He felt that “in a responsible government, there can be no room for the governor acting on discretion."