A blow for the rights of the legislature, in law-making 

1. Assertive Stance on Timely Action

• In a decisive move, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) emphasizes a resolute position on avoiding delays in the legislative process. The CJI's stance is particularly evident in linking the withholding of assent with the requirement to send the Bill back to the Assembly for reconsideration.
• The judgment, as articulated by the CJI, significantly restricts the option of withholding assent. If the Governor decides to withhold assent, the judgment mandates an immediate return of the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration. This procedural requirement leaves the Governor with no alternative but to ultimately grant assent.
• The CJI's far-sighted approach, as reflected in the judgment, is aimed at safeguarding the rights of the legislature in the realm of law-making. The decision extends beyond this, serving as a protective measure for the entire constitutional system, shielding it from potential challenges posed by unelected Governors.
• Despite this judicial clarity, challenges persist for State governments. Some Governors have historically adopted a practice of indecision, withholding any action on Bills sent for assent. The consequences of this practice are profound, potentially nullifying legislative efforts undertaken by the State.
• The Supreme Court of India, drawing attention to the issue in the Punjab case, has unequivocally stated that Governors cannot afford to delay decisions on Bills. This judicial intervention seeks to ensure a swift and timely resolution to the fate of Bills, preventing extended periods of uncertainty.
• The Supreme Court's decision brings greater clarity to Article 200, reinforcing the imperative for Governors to promptly decide on Bills. The ruling underscores the significance of expeditious decision-making to uphold the integrity of the legislative process.
• Governors, in the aftermath of this judicial pronouncement, are compelled to adhere to a more expedited decision-making process. The court's emphasis on timely action reinforces the constitutional duty of Governors to facilitate the smooth functioning of the legislative machinery.

In India, the role of a Governor pertains to the constitutional and executive functions at the state level. 

Appointment

• The Governor of a state in India is appointed by the President of India. The appointment is made by the President, who acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.
• The office of the Governor is established by Article 153 of the Indian Constitution. Article 155 specifies the term of office, qualifications, and conditions of the Governor's service.

Functions and Powers

• The Governor is the constitutional head of the state and represents the President at the state level.
• The Governor's powers are outlined in the state's constitution, and they include executive, legislative, and discretionary powers.
• The Governor plays a role in the state legislative process. For example, they summon and prorogue sessions of the state legislature, address the legislature, and dissolve the state legislative assembly under certain circumstances.
• Bills passed by the state legislature require the Governor's assent to become law. The Governor can also withhold assent or reserve certain bills for the President's consideration.
• The Governor appoints the Chief Minister, who is usually the leader of the majority party in the state legislative assembly.
• The Governor is the head of the state executive, and the Council of Ministers in the state is collectively responsible to the Governor. The Governor appoints various state officials and can also dismiss them in certain circumstances.
• The Governor has discretionary powers, which they can exercise in specific situations. For instance, if there's a hung assembly or political instability, the Governor may use their discretion in the appointment of the Chief Minister or the dissolution of the legislative assembly.
• The term of office for a Governor is usually five years, but they can be reappointed for a second term.

3. Reserving Bills for President's Consideration

• Governors, while restricted in their options by recent judicial decisions, still possess a potential avenue to influence the legislative process. The act of reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President remains a discretionary power available to Governors. However, the scope and types of Bills that can be sent for the President's consideration raise critical questions.
• Article 200's second proviso specifies a category of Bills that must be mandatorily reserved for the President's consideration. These are Bills that derogate from the powers of the High Court, potentially endangering the constitutionally defined position of the court. Consequently, Governors are obligated to send such Bills to the President, where officials of the Home Ministry will play a pivotal role in determining their fate.
• The Constitution, while explicitly mentioning a specific category of Bills for mandatory reservation, does not delineate other categories that can be sent to the President for assent. This leaves room for Governors, on a surface view, to exercise discretion in choosing which Bills to reserve for the President. Recent instances, such as the actions of the Governor of Kerala, highlight the potential use of this discretion to influence the fate of Bills.
• Legal challenges have arisen in response to Governors reserving Bills for the President's consideration, especially when they appear to be against the constitutional provisions. Instances from Kerala and Tamil Nadu, where Governors reserved Bills despite constitutional mandates, have prompted scrutiny by the judiciary.
• The central question in the current political context revolves around the extent of a Governor's discretion in reserving Bills for the President's consideration. The Constitution remains silent on this matter, making only indirect references in Article 213 concerning ordinance-making powers. The need to examine whether a Governor can reserve Bills at their discretion raises crucial constitutional considerations.
• Article 213 indirectly touches upon the discretionary power of Governors in ordinance-making. The provision indicates that a Governor may only promulgate an ordinance with instructions from the President, particularly when deeming it necessary to reserve a Bill with similar provisions. The use of the phrase "deemed it necessary" underscores the importance of sound judgment aligned with the constitutional framework, preventing arbitrary decisions by Governors.

• The Constitution grants Governors power to reserve Bills for the President's consideration, but this power is not without its limitations. Understanding these boundaries is crucial to ensure smooth legislative processes and protect the federal scheme of power.
• One clear limitation lies in the federal division of legislative power. The President has no jurisdiction to scrutinize Bills on subjects exclusively in the State List. Sending such Bills to him would be an abdication of the Governor's constitutional duty and a violation of the federal structure.
• For Bills on subjects in the Concurrent List, the picture gets slightly complex. While the President can consider and assent to such Bills, the Constitution places a specific condition: they must contain provisions "repugnant" to existing Central laws. In other words, not all Concurrent List Bills require presidential assent. Only those that potentially clash with existing Central legislation need to be sent for his consideration.
• If a Governor believes a Bill, whether on a State or Concurrent List, contains unconstitutional provisions, the path forward is different. Sending it to the President is not the solution. Instead, the Governor's duty lies in returning it to the Assembly for reconsideration. This allows the legislature to address the constitutional concerns and potentially align the Bill with the fundamental law.
• It's important to remember that the Governor, like the President, is not personally responsible for the actions of the government. Ultimately, the courts hold the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. Neither the Governor nor the President has the authority to arbitrarily decide on a law's validity; that power rests with the judiciary.

5. Conclusion

Understanding the limitations on sending Bills to the President is essential for ensuring a smooth and constitutionally sound legislative process. Governors must navigate the boundaries of their power, respecting the federal division of subjects and fulfilling their duty to uphold the Constitution. By recognizing the limitations on presidential involvement in State matters and upholding their responsibility to address potential constitutional concerns within the legislature, Governors can play a vital role in maintaining the delicate balance of power within our federal system.