Supreme Court questions Centre on Governors withholding assent to State Bills under Article 200
The Supreme Court questioned the Centre regarding the powers of Governors to withhold assent to State Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution, asking if elected State governments are at the mercy of Governors' whims. A Presidential Reference Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, examined the Centre's submission that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent. The Solicitor-General argued that the power to withhold assent should be used sparingly, especially when it frustrates democratic will or violates fundamental rights. The Court highlighted that the Governorship should not be a "sanctum for retired politicians" and emphasized the need for constitutional interpretation to align with present-day realities.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional implications of Governors withholding assent to State Bills.
- The Court questioned if elected state governments are subject to the arbitrary decisions of Governors.
- The Solicitor-General argued that the Governor's power to withhold assent should be used sparingly.
- The Court emphasized that constitutional interpretation must consider present-day realities and the democratic will.
Exam Facts
- The Supreme Court's Presidential Reference Bench is headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai.
- The discussion centers on Article 200 of the Constitution, which deals with Governor's assent to Bills.
- Article 111 of the Constitution deals with Presidential assent to Bills.
- Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta represented the Centre.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.