The Supreme Court questioned the Central government on whether elected State governments are at the mercy of Governors who could fail Bills by withholding assent.
The court was examining a submission that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent under Article 200 of the Constitution.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued that a Governor's power to withhold assent should be used sparingly.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that if a Governor could lapse a Bill by withholding assent, the same logic would apply to the President of India under Article 111.
Detailed Insights:
The Solicitor General stated that under Article 200, a Governor has four options: grant assent, withhold assent (causing the bill to lapse), reserve the Bill for presidential consideration, or return the Bill to the State Legislative Assembly.
If the Assembly re-passes the Bill, the Governor is bound to grant assent but can still refer it to the President on grounds of repugnancy.
The Chief Justice questioned whether the expectations of the Founding Fathers regarding the harmonious functioning of Governors and elected Ministers have been fulfilled.
Justice Narasimha noted that constitutional interpretation must consider present-day realities, citing litigation under the anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule) as an example where initial idealistic expectations have not been met.
The court observed that the outcome of litigation in many Tenth Schedule cases has been "operation success, patient dead," indicating that the intended purpose of the law is often defeated.
Key Concepts Involved:
Article 200: Constitutional provision outlining the powers and procedures for a Governor regarding assent to State Bills.
Article 111: Constitutional provision outlining the powers and procedures for the President regarding assent to Parliamentary Bills.
Tenth Schedule: Also known as the anti-defection law, it penalizes legislators for defecting to another party.