Supreme Court of India holds state Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills News
© JURIST / Neelabh Bist
Supreme Court of India holds state Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills

The Supreme Court of India released its judgment Thursday in the case State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab establishing that if a Governor chooses to withhold assent to a bill sent by a State Legislature, the Governor is required to promptly return the bill, with a message for the Legislature to reconsider the proposed law.

The Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, heard arguments in the case where Governor Banwarilal Purohit of Punjab had kept bills sent by the Punjab State Legislature indefinitely pending. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the Governor, an unelected head of state, possesses specific constitutional powers, these should not be used to impede the regular legislative process. It clarified that a Governor cannot indefinitely stall a bill without taking any action. The court highlighted that the Governor, acting as a guiding statesman, can recommend a thorough review of the entire bill or specific sections, suggesting amendments. However, the final decision on accepting the Governor’s advice, conveyed in the message, lies solely with the legislature.

Prior to this judgment, it was unclear whether a Governor could withhold assent to a bill indefinitely as Article 200 of the Indian Constitution lacks explicit guidance on the subsequent actions to be taken if a Governor withholds assent to a Bill. Article 200 describes the options a Governor has once he receives a State Legislative Assembly-passed bill, allowing the Governor to either assent, withhold assent or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. The Governor also holds the option to return the bill with a message requesting reconsideration by the House or Houses.

THIS DAY @ LAW

UK parliament rejected J.S. Mill's proposal to give women the vote

On May 20, 1867, the British Parliament rejected by 196-73 an amendment to the 1867 Reform Act presented by John Stuart Mill that would have permitted women to vote. Review Mill's 1869 work The Subjection of Women.

Supreme Court applies Free Exercise Clause to state governments

On May 20, 1940, the United States Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment applied to state governments in Cantwell v. Connecticut under the incorporation doctrine, which applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Learn more about the Incorporation Doctrine from the Cornell Law Schools' Legal Information Institute.