1.
The present writ petition is instituted, under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana, by
the State Government of Suplex City, which is filed seeking a judicial review of the
Governor’s and President’s actions in relation to the bills that were passed by the State
Legislature of Suplex City, due to the gravity of constitutional issues involved, that are
needed to be settled. In light of the eruption and escalation of tensions, it is imperative that the
constitutional stance of the powers of the Governor and President are interpreted in the most
appropriate manner.
2. The short facts necessary to be narrated for the adjudication of this petition, are as under:
The Union of Indiana is a diversified state with a number of states and union territories. One
of them which is the State of Suplex City, is one of the largest and most populous states. The
issue found its ignition point when the legislature of the state passed a series of progressive
bills, namely, the “Suplex City Educational Reforms Act, 2023” and the “Suplex City
Healthcare Accessibility Act, 2023”.
3. As stated, the primary goal of the Educational Reforms Act was to establish a uniform
curriculum for all state schools, implement and promote the usage of technology in classroom
settings, and facilitate mandatory education for individuals up to 18 years of age. Education
serves as a means of ensuring that the citizens of a country contribute to its development
through their innovation and intellect. It is a driving force that helps individuals to realise
their capabilities and intelligence.
4. The Healthcare Accessibility Act implicated its major focus on being committed to
expanding the availability of primary health centres in rural areas, providing subsidised
essential medicines, and ensuring that all state residents have access to health insurance.
5. Both the bills were received by the Governor of the Suplex City for approval on April 15,
2024, which were reserved by him for the consideration of the President since, in his opinion,
the bills were of conflicting nature in terms of constitutionality and validity of central laws.
Hence, they had to be considered by the president, who appointed him under the constitution.
Allegations have been levelled against the decision of the Governor, terming it to be of a
politically influenced nature and due to the representations from various central agencies.
6. On June 1, 2024, the President, after consulting with the Union Cabinet, refused to sign
the bills due to inconsistencies with existing national policies. It's alleged that the Educational
Reforms Act and the Healthcare Reforms Act of 2023 contradict acts passed by the Union
Government, potentially leading to administrative and financial compliance issues.
7. In response to the President’s decision, the State government reacted by challenging the
same since, according to their stance, such an act was unconstitutional in nature while
emphasising the role of the Governor being ceremonial and withholding of assent was marked
to be politically motivated. The State government has put ardent focus on the State
Legislature being a people’s representative has a duty and privilege to frame out such laws
which are included as items in the State List as per the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
8. The Union Government defended the Governor's and President's actions, stating they
were constitutional and had a significant impact on central laws. The President examined the
bills and decided to withhold assent. These decisions caused widespread protests in Suplex
City, with concerns expressed by educational and healthcare organizations about the delay in
implementing reforms.
9. In such circumstances, the State Government of Suplex City would submit that the acts of
the Governor as well as the President should be held to be unjustified and unconstitutional.
The counsel for the State has alleged and argued that political considerations influenced the
decision of the President to withhold assent. The counsel has placed emphasis on the
legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting such bills and laws.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Suplex City has condemned the
intervention of the Union Government through the office of the Governor of the State, holding
them to be violative of the federal structure and of the type harming the autonomy of the
states.
11. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Union of Indiana, submitted that there
lies a constitutional duty upon the Governor to ensure that the bills do not conflict with
national laws and supremacy of Union Laws prevails in order to maintain the constitutional
balance and avoid resurgence of conflicts. The counsel has meticulously highlighted the
principles of federalism and cooperation requiring the uniformity of national and state
policies.
12. The learned counsel tried to fortify the above-referred submission by relying on the
consultative process that forms a part of the Constitution which the President is supposed to
conduct with the Union Cabinet. Various precedents of this court have been cited by the
counsel wherein it has been implored before this court, the necessity of the President to
interfere and decide upon the implementation of such bills which affect the interests of the
citizens as a larger impact.
Analysis
13. After hearing and considering the arguments presented by the learned counsels appearing
for the parties and have gone through the material on record in the form of bills, the following
questions/issues fall for consideration:
a) The first issue relates to the power of the Governor to give assent or withhold
the same in respect of bills passed by the State Legislature, as well as the
constitutionality of reserving bills for consideration by the President.
b) The second issue arises with the withholding of the assent to the said bills by
the President, which is questioned as to whether it is justified or not, alleging
political motive behind the same.
c) The third issue revolves around the principles of federalism and cooperative
governance, wherein the intervention of the Union government in the legislative
process of the State through the primary functionary, the Governor.
d) The fourth issue deals with legislative subjects of the bills, in accordance with
the compartmentalisation of subjects into State Lists and Concurrent lists as per
the constitution limiting the powers given to the Governor and the President.
e) Lastly, the fifth issue deals with the scope of the judiciary in resolving disputes
arising from legislative assent between the Union and the State.
14. Having looked into the bills and assent withheld by the President, it appears that a
thorough examination and deliberation of the constitutional provisions as well as legal
precedents is required. The interpretation of statutes is imperative in this case because it
involves two of the most important aspects for the development of the country.
15. Article 200 elaborates on the situation that when a State's Legislative Assembly passes a
bill, it goes to the Governor. The Governor can approve the bill, reject it, or ask for changes.
If the bill goes back to the Assembly and they agree, the Governor can't reject it. The
Governor must not approve any bill that takes power from the High Court.
16. Thus, the basic ingredients of giving an assent to a bill by the Governor that the
Legislature of the State has passed under Article 200 of the Constitution 1, include three
options at the behest of the Governor, wherein he can either assent to the bill or withhold the
same or that he reserves the same for the consideration by the Republic Head of State,
President.
17. Both the provisions postulate that a Bill passed by the Legislature needs the assent of the
Governor to become a law. There are three things that the Governor can do, that are:
(i) give assent to the Bill; or
(ii) withholds the assent to it; or
(iii) reserve the Bill to be reviewed by the President.
The term “shall declare” in the statute implies that the Governor must proclaim his powers.
18. This Court, has in the case of State of Telangana v. Governor of Telangana2 opined
that the Governor has the power to promptly return a non-Money Bill to the State Legislature
with a message for reconsideration, right after it has been presented for assent. The phrase "as
soon as possible" holds immense constitutional importance, and it's crucial for constitutional
authorities to give it the weight it deserves. This provision allows for efficient and thoughtful
decision-making, emphasizing the significance of timely processes in our legislative system.
19. Furthermore, the Governor has to have a logical recourse to return the bill or to reserve it
for reconsideration, it should not be an arbitrary exercise on the part of the Governor. It is a
well-settled law that a proviso can also serve to be an exception to the provision laid in the
substantive law. Similarly, the proviso to Article 200 states that in cases the Governor does
not give assent to the bill, he has a liberty to hold it for reconsideration by the President,
which is a privilege given to the Governor by the virtue of the same. The case of State of
1
Ibid.
2
(2024) 1 SCC 405
Punjab v. Governor of Punjab3 lays down the points of importance on which the power is to
be exercised as it underscores the compatibility of the Governor's role with the fundamental
principle of parliamentary governance, wherein the authority to give effect to a legislation is
vested in the representatives of the populace, who are elected by them. As a leading
statesman, the Governor may advise a full re-examination of a Bill or specific amendments.
Article 200's substantive component grants the power to the Governor to refuse assent to a
Bill. In such an instance, the Governor is obligated to expeditiously convey a message to the
State Legislature, necessitating the reconsideration of the Bill, in accordance with the first
proviso. The phrase "as soon as possible" carries constitutional significance, emphasizing
expeditious action. Although the Governor, as a Head of the State who is not elected by the
way of representation, is vested with certain constitutional powers, these cannot be leveraged
to impede the routine legislative process of the State Legislatures.
20. The above-stated precedent recognises the significance of the Article while implying
certain limitations upon the exercise of power by the Governor himself terming it to be
‘discretionary’ while it indirectly encroaches the field of boundary to which he has to
circumscribe himself. A simple no from the side of the Governor without any reasoning
supplanted would render the inclusion of such a provision as a dead letter. Therefore, this sort
of virtual veto is kept outside the power of the Governor.
21. The Constitution also lays out the provision for bills that have been reserved for
consideration by the Governor under Article 201, which states when a bill is reserved by a
Governor for the consideration of the President wherein the President is required to indicate
whether he agrees with the bill or disagrees with the same. The proviso to the Article
categorically specifies that in instances where the Bill does not qualify as a Money Bill, the
President is empowered to instruct the Governor to return the Bill to the House or Houses of
the State Legislature, accompanied by a message as stipulated in the initial proviso to article
200. Upon the Bill's return, the House or Houses are obligated to reassess it within a six-
month period from the date of receiving the message. Should the Bill be approved once again,
either with or without amendments, it is to be resubmitted to the President for further review.
3
(2024) 1 SCC 384
22. The Article is supported by the proviso to it, which lays down that the bill should be sent
for analysis by the President wherein such an exercise of power is discretionary at the hands
of the Governor, who feels it fit to send it for examination by the Republic Head.
23. The Allahabad High Court is right in pointing out in the judgement of Chhotey Lal v.
State of Uttar Pradesh4 that a bill that is laid before the Governor travels from both the
Houses of the Legislature and there lies a thorough deliberation upon its provisions.
Thereafter, it is laid open at the behest of the President, either to declare assent or to retain the
same or that he can even keep it aside for it be considered by the President. This is an act
which is unique in its manner and within the ambit of his discretion. Though it is a
discretionary act, but the Governor might feel burdened to act upon the aid and advice
rendered by the Ministers. However, this burden does not overpower the volition guaranteed
to him, and as placed in the judgment itself that this principle is so well established that no
authority is needed in support of it5.
24. The phrases in the above-cited judgment wherein there lies no need for any procedural
authority to ascertain that the A proposed item of legislation cannot be forwarded to the
President in the course of the Governor's discretionary powers, which cannot be used without
due consideration or rational thought. The nature and scope of such discretion has been
discussed in the case of Nabam Rebia6 that the discretion should only be exercised wherein it
has been expressly provided to do so. However, the same is limited to specific situations. The
clause is interpreted to enable the governor to act in conformity with both the Constitution's
provisions and the fundamentals of the rule of law. He has been delineated by the Constitution
either by specific standards or by necessary implications.
25. B.K. Pavitra7, too has laid down clarity upon that the Governor's discretionary powers,
as outlined in Article 200, encompass a substantial authority to reserve decisions for
consideration. This discretion serves as a mechanism for the Governor to exercise oversight
over the legislative body.
4
1951 All LJ 246
5
Ibid.
6
Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1
7
(2019) 16 SCC 129
26. Hence, the conclusive nature of discretion exercised by the Governor in keeping the bills
passed by the Legislature of the State of Suplex City is held to be valid in light of the above-
cited precedents and legal principles enunciated by them. Issues 1 and 2 stand resolved, and
the court is of the opinion that it is constitutionally valid power that the Governor has
exercised in withholding the assent and considering the same to be considered by the
President. It is valid and well within the ambit of the Governor’s power to exercise such acts
of discretion.
27. Considering the principles of federalism and cooperative governance that have been
given by the way of the Constitution8 highlighted across various sections of the same,
including the Preamble itself and other articles. The Indiana system of governance is based
upon the principles of federalism and parliamentary governance. The role of the governor is
ceremonial as pointed out by the principles of the Constitution throughout the various articles,
which has been confirmed by the legal precedents.
28. The counsel appearing for the State of Suplex City has argued that the principles of
balance and division of powers are being infringed upon because of the intervention by the
Union government into the legislative functioning of the State. The concept of federalism has
been defined time and again in the legal precedents. Sir A.V. Dicey has termed Federalism as
political contrivance for a body of States which desire Union but not unity.
29. S.R. Bommai9 is the locus classicus on this point wherein it has been unduly stated by
the Court upon the federal character of the constitution that the Our nation is proudly
proclaimed as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic in the Preamble.. It is
apparent how crucial it is to keep the country's integrity and unity intact. To ensure national
unity and integrity, our founding fathers particularly supported a strong federal government
with a division of authorities between the federal government and the states. This is clear
from even a casual reading of the Constitution's provisions. The question of whether our
Constitution is to be considered "federal" in nature is, was and will always be hotly debated.
30. Federalism is a concept that brings individual states together into a unified entity without
sacrificing their own fundamental political integrity. In a federal system, states unite to
8
Constitution of India, Act of 1950
9
(1994) 3 SCC 1
develop basic policies applicable to all and take part in carrying out decisions based on these
policies. The essence of the union and the separate states, as well as the distribution of
authorities among them, are fundamental to federalism. Essentially, federalism involves the
clear allocation of powers within a federal agreement.
31. Therefore, federalism was recognised as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution 10
in the case of SR Bommai11 as well as Kesavananda12. Therefore, compliance with the
principles of federalism, which includes ensuring that the states are free in themselves, should
not be encroached upon by the government at the centre.
32. As alleged by the petitioners, the Union Government has used the office of Governor as a
means to indulge in the functioning of the legislature of the State of Suplex City, and the
decision of the Governor to keep the bill for reconsideration by the President was a means to
undermine the authority of the State legislature. The Governor, though appointed under the
stamp of the Union Executive, the President, is not to be dictated per se neither by the Union
government nor the President himself.
33. Constituting a thread connecting the three principles as laid under Articles 200 and 201,
respectively, clubbed with the ideal of federalism that binds the functionaries together, this
court has clearly elaborated upon its stances that the Governor is merely a symbolic head with
no substantive powers in the hands and has to act upon the advice rendered by the Council of
Ministers as laid down under Article 163.
34. The case of State of Punjab v. Governor of Punjab13 has set the bar clear upon the
powers and functions of the Governor of a State wherein it was opined that in a system that is
prevalent in the democracy practiced herein, the real power is situated in the hands of the
people that are elected and form the representation of the people. At both levels, the Centre as
well as the State, the executive head forms the functionary that is simply installed for
ceremonial purposes. The governor, appointed by the president, unequivocally serves as the
titular head of state. The principle of “aid and advice” forms the bedrock of the decisions
10
Ibid at 10.
11
(1994) 3 SCC 1
12
AIR 1973 SC 1461
13
(2024) 1 SCC 384
taken by the Governor which effectively affects the governing strategies of a State. Hence, the
Governor is perceived to be a “constitutional statesman” who guides and directs the
Government in the matters where constitutional expertise is required and when he feels it is
outside his capacity, he may refer the same to the President.
35. Furthermore, the judgement of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab14 also lays down
opinion on the same grounds and emphasised that it is a significant principle of the
Constitutional Law that the ministers are ought to respect and accept the liability of every
executive act. The Sovereign never owes his/her personal responsibility rather it is
conditioned with a practical rule of law wherein the responsiveness and accountability to the
Government lies. The powers of discretion are an addition to the set of rights given to the
Governor as compared to that of the President, hence, it holds a seminal value.
36. Hence, the stance of this court is laid in simple words and gives out a clear message that
the responsibility entrusted with that of the Governor is of seminal importance and in no case
shall it be left to be exercised in a way that is derogatory to the framework that binds them all.
Thus, maintaining this fundamental aspect depends on how the governor fulfils his or her job
as the symbolic Head of State. Unrestrained discretion in matters not under the governor's
purview runs the risk of trampling on the functions of the State's democratically elected
government. Federalism and democracy are integral components of the fundamental
framework. One feature imperils the other when it is diminished. Realizing our citizens'
ambitions and fundamental liberties requires adjusting democracy and federalism.
Whenever one prong of the tuning fork is harmed, it damages the apparatus of constitutional
governance.15 There can be no doubt that the Central and the State legislations operate in two
different and distinct fields.16
37. When there is a question to examine the legislative powers in the Constitution, it is
crucial to understand the legitimacy balanced between federal government and state
government wherein expressly a division has been created under Articles 245 and 246, which
specify exclusive as well as concurrent legislative powers. The presence of the Seventh
Schedule, which contains the items expressly reserved to be legislated by certain legislature,
14
(1974) 2 SCC 831
15
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
16
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45
implies the clear-cut division of themes to legislate upon, casting a duty to be abided by. It is
trite that India, being a Union of States, both Parliament and the State Legislature, can frame
laws having regard to their respective legislative competence enumerated in the three lists
contained in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.17
38. Subjects, namely ‘health’ and ‘education’, are included under Item 6, State List, and Item
25, Concurrent List, wherein the respective areas of legislative proficiency are clearly
specified, the ambit of Legislative branches in the Union and States are not always segregated
into impenetrable units. The existence of overlapping between the Lists cannot be avoided
and is bound to happen owing to the diversified field of interests.
39. In the present scenario, the case of M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh18 becomes
important because, it was in this case that the Supreme Court clarified that as per Article
254(2) of the Constitution of India, if a state law on a Concurrent List matter clashes with a
prior parliamentary law, the state law prevails if it has been reserved for and received the
President's assent.
40. Thus, there lies a limitation upon the powers that can be exercised by the Governor and
President in the sense that they are not absolute powers, rather should conform to the
boundaries of the legislative competence. Also, nowhere has the extent been defined.
However, when there lies a conflict between the law passed by State legislature and the Union
law, the latter prevails, provided that the former has not received President’s assent. As in the
present case, if the President would have granted assent to the bill laid before him for
consideration, well within the range of legislative powers of the State, then it would have led
to developmental integration, which was hampered, hence a faulty decision is reflected.
41. Lastly, the issue revolving around the scope of judicial intervention in such conflicts. The
judiciary is an organ set up by the Constitution makers in order to balance out and keep a
check on the powers of the Legislature as well as the Executive. The judicial system is
independent in order to ensure the correct interpretation of statutes, leading to adherence to
constitutional principles.
17
M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board, (2004) 9 SCC 755
18
Ibid.
42. The judiciary's role in adjudicating disputes owing to its Original Jurisdiction 19 stemming
from legislative consent between the Union and the State can be comprehended through the
legal precedents set forth in numerous judgments of the Supreme Court. The judiciary
assumes a pivotal function in the interpretation of the Constitution and in ensuring that
legislative actions conform to constitutional provisions, particularly with regard to the
apportionment of powers between the Union and the States. This stance has been settled by
recognition of judicial review as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution in the
Kesavananda Case20. Our Constitution is not unitary but rather federal in nature. The ability of
judicial review and the simultaneous existence of the Union and the States are essential
components of a federal system.
43. Hence, my conclusions are briefly these –
44. That the Governor of the State of Suplex City had adequate power which he duly
exercised and reserved the bills for consideration, hence, the action was constitutional in
nature.
45. That there seems a political motive behind the decision of the President, since, with his
assent, the bills could have prevailed as laws irrespective of the Union laws since the subject
matter fell within State and Concurrent Lists. Hence, the action is termed to be bad exercise of
power.
46. That the interference of the Union government is condemned, however, the operations
were within the functionary bounds since the governor, as a member of the executive branch,
is obligated to act on their advice and assistance.
47. That the Constitution does, with Seventh Schedule, alongside Article 243, control the
powers of the Governor and President.
48. That the Judiciary is adequately given the powers to undertake any task of judicial review
in order to lay out the appropriate interpretation of the Constitution when a conflict of division
of powers arises.
49. Quoting State of Punjab v. Governor of Punjab21 to suffice my stance –
“Political differences in a democratic polity have to be worked upon and sorted out with a
sense of sobriety and maturity. The dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot
19
Article 131, Constitution of India, 1950.
20
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
21
(2024) 1 SCC 407
degenerate into a race to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be borne in mind, the
realisation of constitutional values may be placed in jeopardy”
