Two Bills on the Governor's Desk: Repugnancy, Money Bill and a Re-passed Bill
In a single week the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly passes three Bills. Bill A regulates fees charged by private coaching institutes - a Concurrent List subject - and fixes a ceiling lower than the one set under an existing central law on the same subject. Bill B is certified as a Money Bill and deals only with appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. Bill C was returned once by the Governor with a message; the House has reconsidered it and passed it again without amendment. The Principal Secretary (Law) places a note before the Governor's office: the Assembly's Law Department argues that because the State law is 'later in time' it must prevail over the central law, and the Minister for Higher Education has publicly asked the Governor to 'clear both Bills within a week'. The Governor's office must now record a decision on each Bill, with reasons that will survive public and judicial scrutiny.
1. Advise the Governor on Bill A. Is the Assembly's 'later in time' argument correct, and which course under Article 200 best protects the State law?
Read the worked answer
The 'later in time' argument is only half the doctrine and, taken alone, it is wrong.
Under Article 254(1), where a State law is repugnant to an earlier or later law of Parliament on a Concurrent List subject, the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy - and the State law remains void even if enacted later. The saving route is Article 254(2): a State law on a Concurrent subject that is repugnant may be reserved for the President's consideration; if the President assents, the State law prevails in that State, though Parliament may still legislate later under the second proviso.
So the correct course is reservation for the President under Article 200, not a simple assent. If the Governor assents, the fee ceiling becomes vulnerable the moment it is challenged, and the State would be defending a provision it could have protected by a single referral. The referral is not a comment on the Bill's merits - it is the constitutionally provided mechanism for exactly this conflict.
Record the reasoning in writing: later enactment does not displace Article 254(1); the Bill touches a Concurrent entry; the repugnancy is direct and not merely incidental.
2. What are the Governor's lawful options on Bill B and on Bill C? Explain why 'return with a message' is available in one case and not the other.
Read the worked answer
Bill B (Money Bill) Article 200 offers assent, withholding of assent, or reservation for the President. But the proviso to Article 200 expressly limits the return-with-message power to a Bill 'which is not a Money Bill'. Because Bill B is a Money Bill - appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund is the classic case, and Article 207 requires the Governor's recommendation for its introduction - the office cannot send it back. The lawful choices are assent, reservation, or (in an extreme constitutional breakdown) withholding, which is a reserve power and not a routine option. On the facts, assent is the correct and expected course.
Bill C (re-passed unchanged) The proviso applies: the Bill is not a Money Bill, so it could be returned once - and it was. Once the House reconsiders and passes the Bill again, Article 200 directs that the Governor 'shall not withhold assent therefrom'. Withholding now would be a plain breach of the constitutional text. Reservation remains textually open but must not be used as a substitute veto; on these facts, assent is the only defensible record.
On the Minister's 'within a week' demand: Article 200 fixes no calendar limit, but indefinite sitting on a Bill is not a neutral act, and courts have treated prolonged unexplained inaction as reviewable. Record a decision, and record the date.