The Governor, a Re-passed Bill and Fourteen Months of Silence
In a State Assembly of 200 members, the ruling coalition holds 118. It passes the State Universities (Regulation of Appointments) Bill, 2024 by voice vote. The Bill empowers the State government to appoint Vice-Chancellors and overrides several UGC regulations; the State Advocate-General says it falls under Entry 25, List III. The Governor returns the Bill once, recommending amendments. The Assembly re-passes it unchanged in a 15-minute sitting attended by 102 members, without debate. The Governor then neither assents nor returns it for 14 months. During the same period, he reserves a separate professional tax Bill for the President's consideration. The State government moves the Supreme Court for a direction that the Governor act. The Chief Minister argues that the Governor is bound by ministerial advice; the Governor's office says it has a 'constitutional duty to protect national standards in higher education' and points to alleged repugnancy with the UGC Act.
1. Identify the Governor's constitutional options under Article 200 and decide whether the 14-month inaction is constitutionally sustainable. How should the earlier return of the Bill affect the analysis?
Read the worked answer
Article 200 gives the Governor three courses: assent, withhold assent, or reserve for the President; for a non-Money Bill he may also return it with a message. The first proviso requires him to act 'as soon as possible' and says that if the House re-passes the Bill, he 'shall not withhold assent therefrom'. The second proviso requires reservation where the Bill would derogate from High Court powers.
Fourteen months of silence fits none of these options. It amounts to a pocket veto, which the Constitution does not confer. In State of Punjab v Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023), the Supreme Court held that a Governor cannot sit on a Bill indefinitely and that inaction is subject to judicial review. After re-passage, withholding assent is expressly barred. Reservation is a separate option, but it must rest on a genuine constitutional ground, not policy disagreement. The Governor's stated desire to protect 'national standards' is a legislative-policy objection; under Article 163 he is normally bound by ministerial advice. The proper course was to reserve promptly, if at all. The inaction is therefore unsustainable.
2. The Governor's office cites repugnancy with the UGC Act. Does this give a valid ground to reserve the Bill? Distinguish reservation under Article 200 from the President's power under Article 201 and Article 254(2).
Read the worked answer
The Bill is on the Concurrent List (Entry 25), and the UGC Act is a Union law referable to Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. If the State law is inconsistent with the Union law, Article 254(1) makes it void to the extent of repugnancy. Article 254(2) provides an escape: a State law reserved for the President and assented to by him prevails in that State. A genuine repugnancy is therefore a legitimate reason for reservation.
But two limits apply. First, the Governor's opinion must be bona fide and based on an identifiable inconsistency, not a general preference for national standards. Second, the timing is awkward: after re-passage, the first proviso to Article 200 says the Governor 'shall not withhold assent'. Reservation is not literally withholding, but using it after re-passage to achieve the same result would defeat the proviso. The correct stage was the first presentation.
Article 201 is also different in effect. The President may assent, withhold assent, or return a non-Money Bill. If the House re-passes it, the President is not obliged to assent, whereas the Governor is. If the President assents under Article 254(2), the State law prevails in that State. The Governor's ground is arguable but his delay is not.
3. What relief can the State seek, and what should the Supreme Court grant? Discuss justiciability, the Governor's discretion under Article 163, and the limits of mandamus.
Read the worked answer
The State can seek a declaration that the Governor's inaction violates Articles 200 and 163, and a mandamus directing him to decide within a fixed period. Courts do not ordinarily direct a Governor to assent to a Bill, because that would substitute judicial will for the legislative process. But the duty to act is not immune from review. Article 163(2) makes the Governor's discretion final, but finality does not protect a refusal to exercise the discretion at all, or a decision taken on irrelevant grounds.
The Court should proceed in stages. First, hold that 14 months is unconstitutional delay and that the Governor must act within a reasonable time, say six weeks. Second, decline to direct assent. Third, if the Governor reserves the Bill, direct that the reservation be placed before the President promptly; the Court cannot bind the President's discretion under Article 201, but it can require the process not to be stalled. Fourth, clarify that the Governor's discretion is narrow: he acts on aid and advice except where the Constitution requires him to act in his own discretion, such as the second proviso to Article 200. This respects separation of powers while vindicating the constitutional timetable.