Withholding Presidential Assent of State Bills
GS-2 Mains
Question : What are the implications and challenges surrounding the President’s withholding of assent to state bills, as seen in Kerala’s recent case, and what measures could be taken to ensure a balance of power between the Governor and the state government in this regard?
Context
- Kerala challenges the President’s withholding assent to several Bills passed by the state legislature.
Background
- The President withheld assent to three Kerala University related Bills out of seven sent for approval in 2023.
- Kerala argues these Bills fall under the State List (legislative powers of the state) and shouldn’t have been referred to the President.
Governor’s Powers over State Bills (Article 200)
- Four options:
- Grant assent (bill becomes law).
- Withhold assent (bill fails).
- Return the bill for reconsideration (except Money Bills).
- Reserve the bill for President’s consideration.
Reserving a Bill for the President
- Mandatory reservation: Bill endangering the state High Court’s position.
- Discretionary reservation (Governor’s judgment):
- Unconstitutional (ultra vires).
- Against national interest.
- Grave national importance.
- Compulsory property acquisition.
Sarkaria Commission Recommendations
- Reservation for President’s consideration should be a rare practice, used only for potential unconstitutionality.
- Governor should act on ministerial advice (except in exceptional cases).
- President should dispose of reserved bills within six months.
- Reasons for withholding assent should be communicated to the state government (if possible).
The Way Forward
- Governor’s power to reserve bills is crucial for ensuring state laws comply with the Constitution.
- Unilateral actions by the Governor against ministerial advice need checks and balances.
- Amending the Constitution or a Supreme Court verdict could address potential misuse of gubernatorial discretion.