Governor withholding Bill without asking Assembly to reconsider is counterproductive: Supreme Court
Supreme Court
on Wednesday observed that if a governor decides to "withhold" a bill passed by a state legislature without even asking the latter to reconsider or modify the bill, it would be "counterproductive to the powers of governor and the
legislative process
".
The Constitution bench headed by CJI BR Gavai, presiding over a presidential reference case on whether SC can lay down timelines and procedures for the president and state governors, also questioned whether the governor can be vested with the power to permanently withhold assent to a bill.
Speaking for the five-member bench, the CJI verbally remarked: "In case a governor has the power to permanently withhold assent to the bills passed by the state legislature, it would leave the elected state government at the whims and fancies of an unelected governor." The CJI further added that the governor will then have ample powers to sit over bills and withhold it for time immemorial.
Speaking about the power of
discretion of governors
, the CJI verbally remarked "We have seen recent examples where governors have used discretion leading to so many litigations." He added the "presumption always is that those holding constitutional office would act in bonafide".
Weighing in, justice Surya Kant orally remarked that the governor ought to give reasons for withholding a bill: "Otherwise how would a judicial review happen?"
Live Events
Justice Kant said: "If we are talking about wider powers of the governor then why this curtailment? What prevents him from returning it (to the state legislature) with the message (his objections on a bill)."
Appearing on behalf of the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that under
Article 200
of the Constitution, a governor can withhold assent to a bill, making it "fall through" with no option to send it back to the legislature. He contended that the office of governor or president is not merely a "post man". Mehta added that a governor is "not powerless". Elaborating, he contended "an individual indirectly elected is no lesser than an individual who is directly elected".
The bench queried about the "meaning" of the word "withhold" and whether any debate has taken place on "withhold" in the Parliament. The bench also verbally remarked that the interpretation of the Constitution "cannot be static".
The solicitor general also argued that a governor's power to withhold is to be used rarely. "Governor...represents the Union of India, appointed by the president. The president is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression," he submitted.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Amit Shah: PM Modi got draft reworked to bring himself under ambit
PM Modi NEW DELHI: It was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who had the draft of Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 reworked to include himself in its ambit, home minister Amit Shah shared in a post on X on Wednesday. Sources in the government said Modi added the provision requiring a prime minister who spends 30 consecutive days under arrest or detention for an alleged offence punishable with a prison term extending up to five years or more, to resign on the 31st day, based on the reasoning that moral standards in politics must apply as much to prime ministers as they do to any chief minister or minister at the Centre and in states or Union Territories. The original draft of the 130th Constitutional amendment Bill had proposed to cover only chief ministers and ministers at the Centre and in the states. As per the Bill, introduced by Shah on Wednesday, in case the prime minister does not tender his resignation on the 31st day of his arrest, "he shall cease to hold office from the day falling thereafter". The Bill was on Wednesday referred to a joint parliamentary committee for thorough scrutiny. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Europe Travel Hack That Saves You Hundreds on Trips! Learn More Undo Dismissing the opposition's charge that the Bill was a ploy by the Modi regime to dislodge state govts by having their chief ministers and ministers removed through arrest in "motivated" cases, a senior govt functionary said that the same provisions apply to the prime minister and Union ministers. The functionary said it was high time that the PM, CM and ministers display character and conduct that aligns with constitutional morality and principles of good governance, and cited the example of govt employees who are deemed suspended if detained in custody for only 48 hours. "Why should bureaucrats/govt personnel alone bear moral responsibility in the event of detention or arrest? Ministers are also public servants and must withdraw from office if arrested for 30 days. They can always rejoin the same post after release," underlined the functionary. He added that the 30-day timeframe is enough for the affected PM/CM/minister to apply for bail and have it heard and decided, right till the last court of appeal.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
People will decide if governments can be run from jails: Amit Shah
Amit Shah NEW DELHI: Union home minister Amit Shah on Wednesday asserted that, unlike the Congress party 's approach of placing the Prime Minister above the law, the BJP 's policy ensures that the Prime Minister, ministers, and chief ministers are subject to the rule of law. "Now, the people of the country will have to decide whether it is appropriate for a minister, chief minister, or the PM to run the govt while in jail," Shah posted on X. He highlighted that Narendra Modi introduced a Constitutional Amendment Bill to bring himself under the law's ambit, while the Congress-led opposition opposed it to "remain outside the law's ambit, run govts from jail, and not relinquish their attachment to power". "The purpose of this bill is to elevate the declining level of morality in public life and bring integrity to politics," Shah said. The proposed law stipulates that no person in jail can serve as PM, CM, or minister. He noted, "When the Constitution was framed, our Constitution-makers could not have imagined that in the future, there would be political figures who would not resign on moral grounds before being arrested. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Europe Travel Hack That Saves You Hundreds on Trips! Learn More Undo " Shah pointed out that, in recent years, some CMs and ministers have immorally continued governing from jail without resigning. The bills include a provision allowing an accused politician to seek bail within 30 days of arrest. Shah contrasted this with historical actions, recalling that former PM Indira Gandhi, through Constitutional Amendment No. 39, granted the Prime Minister immunity from legal action. "On the one side, this is the work culture and policy of Congress, that they place the Prime Minister above the law through constitutional amendments. On the other side, the policy of BJP is that we are bringing our govt's PM, ministers, and CMs within the ambit of law," he said. Shah noted that BJP and NDA upheld ethical values, citing veteran LK Advani's resignation following allegations. In contrast, he accused Congress of perpetuating an "unethical tradition" started by Indira Gandhi. He referred to Congress's attempt to protect RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav with an ordinance, which Rahul Gandhi opposed, yet later embraced Yadav publicly in Patna. Shah claimed this exposed the opposition's duplicity. He clarified that the bills were always intended for thorough discussion in the Joint Committee of Parliament. "Yet, abandoning all shame and decency, entire INDI alliance, led by Congress, gathered to oppose it with crude behaviour to protect the corrupt. Today, the opposition has been completely exposed in front of the public," Shah said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
State doubles down on 6-6-5 matrix for Scheduled Castes, plans panel to monitor reservation
Bengaluru: Barely 24 hours after a special cabinet meeting which decided on a 6-6-5 formula for internal reservation among Scheduled Castes, chief minister Siddaramaiah said the govt will set up a Permanent Scheduled Castes Commission to periodically study socio-economic mobility of communities and recommend changes in the quota structure. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Making a formal statement in the assembly Wednesday, Siddaramaiah clarified that the govt had not rejected the Justice HN Nagamohan Das Commission report as alleged by the opposition. "The govt is pleased to place before this House that the report of Justice Nagamohan Das has been accepted with modifications," Siddaramaiah said. "We believe that this decision will do justice to the decades-long struggle for internal reservation." He said the got will soon begin recruitment under the new matrix, with a one-time relaxation in age limit. He also said cases filed against activists who fought for internal reservation will be withdrawn and future revisions in quota distribution would be based on data from the upcoming national census. He said restructuring of the Commission's report was intended to ensure fairness. "These changes were made to ensure equality and fairness in access to education, employment and other opportunities for all 101 Scheduled Castes. In making this decision, the cabinet has adhered to the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment," he said. Detailing modifications, Siddaramaiah said: "Communities identified by the Commission as Left-Hand section will be provided 6% internal reservation; the Commission had grouped castes such as Paraya and Mogera (Right-Hand) with the Left-Hand section. The cabinet decided to retain these communities with the Right-Hand group, and therefore, 6% reservation will be given to the Right-Hand section." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Nagamohan Das had suggested 4% reservation for touchable castes and 1% for 59 castes with a combined population of 5,22,099, categorised as sub-group A. Siddaramaiah said the cabinet had merged these two categories for administrative reasons and provide 5% reservation together. Siddaramaiah said the govt's move was consistent with constitutional provisions and referred to Supreme Court judgments to assert that the state govt has the authority to sub-classify SCs. While Congress hailed the decision as a milestone in social justice, opposition BJP said the framework was prepared by its govt earlier and Congress was only rehashing and presenting it again. With speaker UT Khader disallowing a debate, BJP members staged a walkout in protest. Deputy CM DK Shivakumar remarked: "We have resolved an issue that was pending for 25 years. The Scheduled Caste community is happy. I appeal to you (opposition) to be happy too." Khader said that while the opposition's demand for a debate was valid, the govt was also within its rights to refuse. He said the matter may be taken up on Friday if time permits.
