Article 200 of Indian Constitution

Article 200 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that governs the process through which a Bill, passed by the State Legislature, is presented to the Governor for assent. It sets the framework within which the Governor can act in relation to the Bills passed by the legislature. 

The powers granted under this article are significant as they allow the Governor to either grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration. While it appears straightforward, the interpretation and exercise of these powers have been a subject of considerable legal and political debate, particularly in recent years. 

This article will explore the key aspects of Article 200, its implications, judicial interpretations, and the challenges that arise from its implementation.

What is Article 200 of Indian Constitution?

Article 200 of the Constitution of India is part of Chapter I of Part VI, which deals with the executive power of the State. This article primarily addresses the procedure to be followed when a Bill passed by the State Legislature is presented to the Governor. 

The Governor plays a pivotal role in either granting assent to the Bill or taking other actions, such as withholding assent or reserving the Bill for the President’s consideration. In essence, Article 200 ensures a system of checks and balances in the legislative process at the state level, although its exercise has raised several legal and constitutional questions over time.

The Text of Article 200

Article 200 of the Indian Constitution reads as follows:

“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.”

The Three Main Powers of the Governor under Article 200

Article 200 grants the Governor three primary powers concerning the Bills passed by the State Legislature:

Granting Assent

The most straightforward action the Governor can take is to grant assent to the Bill. Once assent is given, the Bill becomes law and is enacted by the Governor. This power reflects the Governor’s role in the legislative process, acting as the final authority on whether a Bill should become law.

Withholding Assent

The Governor also has the power to withhold assent to a Bill. This means the Governor may choose not to approve the Bill passed by the State Legislature. However, such a decision must be justified, and the Governor’s reasons must align with constitutional provisions. In certain cases, the Governor may withhold assent if the Bill contradicts constitutional principles, affects federal balance, or may harm the judiciary’s powers.

Reserving for Presidential Consideration

Under specific circumstances, the Governor may reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration. This happens particularly when the Governor feels the Bill could undermine the constitutional framework or is contrary to the interests of the Union, or if it diminishes the powers of the High Court. In such cases, the Governor seeks the President’s opinion before granting assent.

The Return Mechanism

Another significant power granted to the Governor under Article 200 is the ability to return the Bill (except Money Bills) to the State Legislature for reconsideration. When the Governor returns a Bill, it is typically accompanied by a message requesting the Legislature to reconsider the Bill or certain provisions. In particular, the Governor may suggest amendments or modifications for the Legislature’s consideration. Once the Bill is reconsidered, and if the Legislature passes it again, with or without the recommended amendments, the Governor must grant assent.

This mechanism ensures that the Governor does not act arbitrarily but provides the Legislature with an opportunity to address concerns and reconsider the Bill.

Time Frame for Returning a Bill

The Constitution does not specify a fixed time frame within which the Governor must return the Bill. The phrase “as soon as possible” is vague and open to interpretation. The lack of a clear deadline has led to some uncertainty regarding the Governor’s action on Bills and has been a point of contention in legal disputes.

The High Court Protection Clause

Article 200 also has a crucial provision protecting the powers of the High Court. The second proviso of the article stipulates that the Governor must reserve for the President any Bill that, in the opinion of the Governor, would diminish the powers of the High Court. This ensures that the judiciary remains independent and its position is not undermined by any legislative action.

This provision has been instrumental in preserving the judiciary’s authority and maintaining the balance between the various branches of government. It ensures that the legislative body cannot pass laws that may harm the High Court’s jurisdiction, ensuring constitutional balance.

Recent Legal and Political Controversies Surrounding Article 200

The Tamil Nadu Case

A significant legal controversy concerning Article 200 arose in 2023 when the Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK, challenged the actions of Governor RN Ravi. Governor Ravi had withheld assent to multiple Bills passed by the State Legislature. Some of these Bills had been pending since early 2023. The Tamil Nadu government filed a petition in the Supreme Court, questioning the Governor’s exercise of power under Article 200 and seeking clarity on its constitutional limits.

The case gained significance because the Tamil Nadu government argued that the Governor’s actions were politically motivated and aimed at obstructing the legislative process. The Supreme Court intervened and observed that Governors, as non-elected representatives, should not obstruct the democratic process. The case raised questions regarding the extent of the Governor’s discretion and the time frame within which the assent should be granted.

The Punjab Case

Similarly, in Punjab, there was a legal dispute regarding the Governor’s refusal to grant assent to certain Bills. The Punjab government filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking judicial intervention. The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor could not withhold assent indefinitely and must act in accordance with the constitutional mandate of “as soon as possible.”

The Court’s ruling in this case aligned with earlier precedents and emphasised the need for timely action by the Governor. The case reinforced the principle that the Governor’s discretion is not absolute and must be exercised within reasonable limits.

Judicial Precedents and Interpretations of Article 200

Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court established several important principles regarding gubernatorial powers. The Court ruled that the Governor could not withhold assent to a Bill indefinitely. The Court also emphasised that the Governor must return the Bill to the Legislature with specific recommendations if necessary, rather than keeping it pending without action.

The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023)

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Punjab case reinforced the principles laid down in the Nabam Rebia case. The Court ruled that the Governor could not withhold assent without acting on the Bill. It also clarified that the Governor’s power to withhold assent must be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles and cannot be used to obstruct the legislative process arbitrarily.

Conclusion

Article 200 of the Indian Constitution plays a vital role in ensuring the proper functioning of the state legislature while safeguarding the powers of the Governor. It provides a system of checks and balances, ensuring that legislation is not passed arbitrarily and is subject to review. However, the powers vested in the Governor have been the subject of debate, especially regarding the ambiguity of terms like “as soon as possible” and the potential for political interference.