Governor's Power to Withhold Bills under Article 200

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai In RE: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and The President of India (2025) held that a Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill without returning it to the State Legislature, as such power does not exist under Article 200 and would be contrary to constitutional principles of federalism. 

What was the Background of In RE: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India (2025) Case? 

• The Presidential Reference was made to clarify the constitutional position regarding the powers of Governors and the President in dealing with bills passed by State Legislatures. 
• Issues arose regarding instances where Governors neither granted assent to bills nor returned them to the Legislature, effectively stalling legislation through inaction. 
• Questions emerged about whether Governors had a "simpliciter" power to withhold assent to bills without taking any further action. 
• The constitutional interpretation of Article 200 required clarity on whether "withholding assent" was an independent fourth option available to the Governor beyond the three explicitly mentioned options. 
• Concerns were raised about the impact of indefinite withholding on State Legislature powers and federal principles. 
• The Union Government contended that returning the bill to the Assembly was an additional fourth option available to the Governor, as this step was mentioned only in the first proviso to Article 200. 
• Questions also arose regarding whether judicially prescribed timelines could be fixed for Governors/President for giving assent to bills and whether a concept of "deemed assent" existed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Governor Has Only Three Options, Not Four: 

• The Court examined the structure of Article 200 and concluded that the Governor has only three constitutional options when a Bill is presented: to assent, to reserve it for the President, or to withhold assent by returning the Bill to the Legislature with comments. 
• The Bench rejected the Union Government's argument that returning the bill to the Assembly was a fourth option, preferring instead an interpretation that binds the first proviso to the main text of Article 200. 

No Simpliciter Power to Withhold Bills: 

• The Court expressly rejected the interpretation that treats "withholding assent" as an independent power allowing the Governor to let a Bill fall through without action. 
• The Court noted significant constitutional logic against a simpliciter power of withholding: "The first proviso disentitles the Governor from returning the Bill to the House in case it is a Money Bill. Therefore, in case of a Money Bill the Governor's option is limited to either assenting to the Bill or reserving it to the President. However, if the option to withhold a Bill simpliciter is read into the substantive part of Article 200, then, even a Money Bill can be withheld simpliciter, which reading, in our opinion, defies constitutional logic." 

Mandatory Dialogic Process: 

• Under the Court's interpretation, if the Governor chooses to withhold assent, he must return the Bill to the Legislature with comments for reconsideration. 
• Once the Legislature passes the Bill again, with or without amendments, the Governor "shall not withhold assent therefrom." 
• The first proviso to Article 200 mandates a dialogic process between the Governor and the Legislature, which is essential for maintaining the cooperative spirit of Indian federalism. 

Federalism Principles: 

• The Court stated: "It would be against the principle of federalism and a derogation of the powers of the State legislatures, to permit the Governor to withhold a Bill without following the dialogic process in the first proviso to Article 200." 
• The Court referred to precedents holding federalism as a basic structure of the Constitution. 

Dialogue Over Obstructionism: 

• The Court held that if two interpretations are possible, an interpretation that favors a dialogic process encouraging institutional comity and deliberation between constitutional institutions must be preferred. 
• The Court stressed that "dialogue, reconciliation and balance, and not obstructionism is the essence of constitutionalism that we practice in this Republic." 

No Timelines or Deemed Assent: 

• The bench held that Governors and President cannot be subjected to judicially prescribed timelines for their decisions on Bills under Articles 200/201. 
• The Court ruled that there is no concept of "deemed assent" of Bills as per the Constitution. 

What is Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 

About: 

• Article 200 deals with the assent to bills passed by State Legislatures. 
• When a Bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor has certain constitutional options to deal with it. 
• Article 200 is a crucial provision that defines the relationship between the Governor and the State Legislature in the legislative process. 
• The provision reflects the system of checks and balances in the constitutional framework while maintaining federal principles. 

Options Available to Governor Under Article 200: 

• Assent to the Bill: The Governor may declare that he assents to the Bill, making it an Act. 
• Withhold Assent: The Governor may withhold assent to the Bill, but this must be done by returning it to the Legislature with comments for reconsideration (except in case of Money Bills). 
• Reserve for President: The Governor may reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President of India. 

Special Provision for Money Bills: 

• In case of a Money Bill, the Governor cannot return the Bill to the House for reconsideration. 
• For Money Bills, the Governor's option is limited to either assenting to the Bill or reserving it for the President. 

First Proviso - The Dialogic Process: 

• If the Governor withholds assent and returns the Bill with comments, the House(s) must reconsider the Bill. 
• The Legislature may pass the Bill again with or without amendments. 
• Once the Bill is passed again by the Legislature and presented to the Governor, "he shall not withhold assent therefrom." 
• This creates a mandatory dialogic process between the Governor and the Legislature. 

Constitutional Significance: 

• Article 200 exemplifies the cooperative spirit of Indian federalism. 
• It establishes a checks-and-balances model with emphasis on dialogue and reconciliation rather than obstructionism. 
• The provision ensures that State Legislatures retain their constitutional powers while providing the Governor a role in the legislative process. 
• The dialogic process prevents arbitrary exercise of power by either the Governor or the Legislature. 

Relationship with Article 201: 

• Article 201 deals with bills reserved for consideration of the President. 
• When the Governor reserves a bill for Presidential consideration, the President may either assent to the bill, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the Legislature for reconsideration. 
• Together, Articles 200 and 201 form the constitutional framework for assent to State legislation.