New Delhi
In a hearing on a presidential reference, the Supreme Court on Tuesday probed whether a Governor’s discretionary power to withhold assent to legislation extends to money Bills. A five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, observed that Article 200 of the Constitution allows Governors to return non-money Bills to assemblies but does not explicitly address money Bills. The bench asked if recognising the Governor’s independent withholding power could permit withholding even a money Bill.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing Maharashtra, argued that the Governor’s withholding power is discretionary and not subject to judicial review. He contended that Article 200 provides no timeline or precondition for exercising this power and that the founding fathers intended it as a form of veto. Salve stressed that assent to legislation must be granted by the Governor or President, not by courts.
The bench also questioned senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul about prolonged withholding of Bills, to which he replied that egregious conduct should be addressed by Parliament. The reference arises from questions on whether courts can impose deadlines on Governors or the President for acting on Bills passed by state legislatures.
The debate comes against a backdrop of Article 143 consultations by President Droupadi Murmu and earlier judicial intervention under Article 142 to deem assent to ten Tamil Nadu Assembly Bills. The court examined justiciability issues, highlighting that while the Governor has broad discretion, there are limited judicially manageable standards to review such exercises of power.
