Role of Supreme Court, President, and Governor in Passage of State Bills

Role of Supreme Court, President, and Governor in Passage of State Bills

Focus: Articles 143, 200, and 201 of the Constitution

1. CONTEXT AND WHY IN NEWS

• The Supreme Court (SC) recently delivered a judgment raising a constitutional debate:
  • Can SC direct or expect the President of India to seek its opinion under Article 143 on the constitutionality of a bill passed by a state legislature?
  • This arose in the context of Article 200 and Article 201, which deal with Governor’s and President’s assent to bills passed by State Legislatures.

1. KEY ARTICLES FROM THE CONSTITUTION INVOLVED

1️. Article 200 – Assent to Bills by the Governor

• Governor’s Options When Presented With a Bill:
  1. Give assent.
  2. Withhold assent.
  3. Return the bill (if not a money bill) for reconsideration.
  4. Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration (especially if it appears to violate the Constitution or involve larger national interest).

2️. Article 201 – President’s Actions on Reserved Bills

• When a bill is reserved by the Governor:
  • President may give assent or withhold assent.
  • No time limit or obligation to provide reasons is mentioned in the Constitution.
  • The bill does not become law unless the President gives assent.

3️. Article 143 – Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

• President may refer to SC any question of law or fact if:
  • It is of public importance.
  • SC may give its opinion, but it’s not binding.
• Not originally meant for advance rulings on bills.

 III. SUMMARY OF SUPREME COURT’S STAND

1. Judicial Suggestion to President:
   • SC suggested that if a bill appears unconstitutional, President “ought to” seek SC’s opinion under Article 143.
2. Reasoning Given by the SC Bench:
   • Constitution expects the President to seek judicial advice to avoid bias/mala fides by the executive.
   • The vires (validity) of a bill should be assessed by a judicial mind.
   • Courts are ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, not the Union executive.
3. Critical Viewpoints:
   • The Constitution does not require President to give reasons under Article 201.
   • Article 143 is discretionary, not mandatory.
   • There is no concept of advance ruling in constitutional matters like there is in tax laws (e.g., GST, Income Tax).
   • If this becomes standard, President would have to refer hundreds of bills every year, which is impractical.

1. PRACTICAL CASE REFERENCE

• Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004:
  • President sought SC’s opinion under Article 143.
  • SC gave its opinion only in 2016 — 12 years later.
  • Illustrates delays and limits of this approach.

1. INSIGHTS: WHAT THIS CASE REVEALS