Supreme Court Examines Governor's Duty to Act 'Forthwith' on State Bills Under Article 200
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments from states like West Bengal and Karnataka regarding delays by Governors in assenting to bills. Senior advocates argue that under Article 200, Governors must return bills 'as soon as possible,' which should be interpreted as 'forthwith' or 'immediately.' They contend that Governors, as titular heads, cannot sit on bills indefinitely or question their constitutionality, as that role belongs to the judiciary. The states argue that such delays obstruct the will of the people and violate the federal structure, emphasizing that Governors must act on the 'aid and advice' of the State Cabinet.
Key Points
- Article 200 requires Governors to either assent, withhold assent, or reserve bills for the President 'as soon as possible.'
- States argue that Governors are bound to grant assent if the legislature re-passes a bill after it was returned.
- The 'forthwith' interpretation aims to prevent Governors from creating a constant state of conflict with elected governments.
- Article 254(2) allows Parliament to neutralize a repugnant State law by adding to or amending it.
Exam Facts
- Article 200 (Assent to Bills)
- Article 167 (Duties of Chief Minister)
- Article 254(2) (Inconsistency between laws)
- Five-judge Presidential Reference Bench
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.