By practice and usage there is no power of veto exercised by the crown in England now. There too royal assent is necessary for a Bill to be passed by Parliament to become law and the crown has the power to withhold assent. In this context it would be useful to examine the practice in the United Kingdom. The fact that the Constitution does not mention the grounds on which a Governor may withhold assent to a Bill shows that this power should be exercised by the Governor extremely sparingly and after very careful consideration of the consequences of such action. If the Governor who does not reflect in any way the aspirations of the people of the State refuses assent, and thereby defeats the legislative programme of the elected government, it would be against the spirit of the Constitution. The legislature reflects the will of the people and is the constitutionally designated body to make laws. But it is not normally done by any Governor because it would be an extremely unpopular action. The fourth option, of course, is to withhold the assent. Nevertheless, the courts have conceded a certain discretion to the Governors in the matter of sending Bills to the President. The Constitution does not mention any other type of Bill which is required to be reserved for the consideration of the President. The provision concerned makes it clear that a Bill can be reserved for the consideration of the President only if the Governor forms an opinion that the Bill would endanger the position of the High Court by whittling away its powers. The third option is to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. This provision contained in Article 200 (proviso) unambiguously affirms the primacy of the legislature in the legislative exercise. In this case, if the Assembly passes the Bill without making any change and sends it back to the Governor, he will have to give assent to it. He may give assent or he can send it back to the Assembly requesting it to reconsider some provisions of the Bill, or the Bill itself. Therefore, the question of whether a Governor is permitted by the Constitution to cause uncertainty in the matter of giving assent to the Bills passed by State legislatures assumes great importance.Īrticle 200 of the Constitution provides certain options for the Governor to exercise when a Bill reaches him from the Assembly. Such actions by Governors throw the legislative programmes of governments out of gear because of the uncertainty surrounding the assent.

In Kerala the situation has become a bit curious with the Governor publicly announcing that he would not give assent to the Lokayukta Amendment Bill and the Kerala University Amendment Bill. In Tamil Nadu, the Governor forwarded the Bill for exemption from the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) to the President after considerable delay. Thus, the Governor’s assent becomes the most crucial act in the whole law-making process.īut the Governor’s assent has, of late, become a controversial issue in at least two States - Kerala and Tamil Nadu. It may look a bit strange that the law-making body does not have the final say in the process of law making and the Bill it passes gets transformed into law only when the Governor assents to it. In all democratic countries, similar provision exists in their constitutions. The Governor being a part of the State legislature, the process of law making is complete only when he signs it, signifying his assent. A Bill passed by the State Assembly becomes law only after it is assented to by the Governor.

Timelane road to oblivion