The Supreme Court of India has clarified that state Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills, hence manifestly changing the interpretation of legislative procedures in India. This ruling was released 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 to the Legislature for reconsideration.
The Court led by India’s Chief Justice DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, issued this justice in a case where Governor Banwarilal Purohit of Punjab had kept bills sent by the Punjab State Legislature indefinitely pending. The Supreme Court emphasised that while the Governor, an unelected head of state, possesses specific constitutional powers, these should not be used to stall the regular legislative process. They also elucidated that the Governor cannot indefinitely suspend a bill without taking any action. Although the Governor can recommend a thorough review of the entire bill or specific sections, suggesting amendments, the final decision lies solely with the Legislature.
Previously, there was ambiguity around whether a Governor could indefinitely withhold assent to a bill as Article 200 of the Indian Constitution does not provide clear guidance on the subsequent actions required if a Governor withholds assent to a Bill. Article 200 outlines 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. Additionally, the Governor can return the bill with a message requesting reconsideration by the House or Houses.