The Bill the Governor Would Not Sign
The Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the A.P. Private Professional Institutions (Admission and Fee Regulation) Bill in February 2023. It fixes a 70% state quota in unaided engineering colleges and caps tuition fees. The subject falls in Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the Bill is not repugnant to any Union law, and it does not touch the powers of the High Court. The Governor neither assents nor returns it. In April 2024, after fourteen months, he reserves it 'for the consideration of the President' under Article 200. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has kept it pending for a further eleven months. Parents' associations have moved the High Court, arguing that a validly passed State law has been buried by delay; the Raj Bhavan says it acted to obtain 'constitutional clarity'. Meanwhile the Assembly re-passes the identical Bill and sends it up again. College managements separately argue that a State-imposed quota in unaided institutions is itself unconstitutional, relying on P.A. Inamdar.
1. Identify the courses of action open to the Governor under Article 200 and decide whether the reference to the President was constitutionally justified on these facts.
Read the worked answer
Options. Article 200 gives four courses: assent; withhold assent; return a non-Money Bill with a message; or reserve the Bill for the President's consideration. The first proviso makes reservation compulsory only where the Bill would derogate from the powers of the High Court. This Bill does not, so any reservation here is discretionary, not mandatory.
Why the discretion is still constrained. Reservation is an exceptional device, not a routine way of postponing a political decision. The Doypack principle (State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co., 2012) holds that a Governor cannot reserve a Bill merely because the Union's policy differs from the State's. The Punjab reference to the Supreme Court in 2023 establishes the companion point: a Governor cannot sit indefinitely on a Bill - withholding assent is not an absolute veto, and prolonged inaction is itself reviewable.
Application. Fourteen months of silence, followed by a reference after the State had begun agitating, converts the Governor's office into a political arbiter. The Bill is within competence, is not repugnant, and does not touch the High Court. The reference is therefore vulnerable, though the merits of the 70% quota under P.A. Inamdar are a separate question that the Governor had no power to decide at the assent stage.
2. Suppose the President withholds assent and the Assembly re-passes the same Bill. What is the constitutional position of the 2023 Act and of the re-passed Bill?
Read the worked answer
Article 201 permits the President to assent, withhold assent, or return the Bill for reconsideration. Withholding is a political-constitutional check; it is not a finding that the State lacked legislative competence.
Consequences for the 2023 Act. It never became law. No right or liability can be founded on it, and no college can be compelled to reserve 70% seats under it. Parents who relied on the Bill have no enforceable claim.
Consequences of re-passage. Re-passage is not unconstitutional - Article 201 does not bar the State from legislating again on a Concurrent List subject - but it does not break the deadlock either, because the fresh Bill can be reserved again and meet the same fate. Repeated re-passage and repeated withholding convert a federal safeguard into an instrument of Union control over a State's policy choices, which is exactly what the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions warned against when they recommended confining reservation to Bills of a specified class (those derogating from High Court powers or opposed to Directive Principles). The durable remedies are institutional - an Inter-State Council reference or a constitutional amendment - not another round of re-passage.
3. The High Court is asked to direct the Governor to give assent. What is the correct judicial approach and the appropriate relief?
Read the worked answer
No mandamus to assent. Article 361(1) protects the Governor from being answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers of the office, and the choice among the four courses in Article 200 is a constitutional discretion. A court cannot make that choice for him.
What the court can examine. Whether the power was exercised on relevant material, in good faith and within a reasonable time. The Punjab litigation of 2023 shows that prolonged inaction on Bills is not immune from review, and that the court may record a finding that a reference was unjustified.
Appropriate relief. A direction to the office rather than to the individual: dispose of the Bill within a fixed period, and - if the reference to the President is found to be without jurisdiction - consider it afresh under Article 200. The court should expressly decline to rule on the quota's validity, since that question is not ripe until a law exists.
The line to hold. The court must not do what the Constitution assigns to the Governor, any more than the Governor may do what the Constitution assigns to the Assembly. Judicial restraint here is not abdication; it is the separation of powers applied symmetrically.