The Governor cannot veto the legislature by merely withholding assent to a bill; instead, the Governor must return the bill to the assembly upon withholding assent : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in the case of The State Of Punjab v Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab And Anr., clarified that when a Governor decides to withhold assent to a bill, it is mandatory to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration. This clarification becomes crucial as Article 200 of the Constitution doesn't explicitly outline the subsequent steps following the Governor's withholding of assent.
Article 200 provides three options for the Governor: grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President's consideration. The proviso to Article 200 specifies that the Governor may return a bill to the assembly with a message indicating aspects requiring reconsideration. If the House re-adopts the bill, with or without amendments, the Governor is obligated to grant assent.
Previously, there was uncertainty regarding whether the Governor must return the bill to the assembly after withholding assent. This issue arose in Tamil Nadu, where the Governor withheld assent to certain bills without returning them to the house, yet the assembly readopted them. During the hearing of the writ petition by the State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court questioned whether the Governor is obligated to return a bill after withholding assent.
In the recent judgment of the Punjab case, the Supreme Court emphasized that if the Governor decides to withhold assent under Article 200, the logical course of action is to follow the proviso's directive to send the bill back to the state legislature for reconsideration. Failure to do so would grant the Governor the power to disrupt the legislative process by merely declaring assent is withheld without further recourse. The Court reaffirmed that the Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, cannot use constitutional powers to impede the normal legislative process in a parliamentary democracy.
The Court clarified that the Governor's role is that of a titular head, and real power lies with the elected representatives. In the Punjab case, the Governor kept the bills pending by questioning the validity of the assembly session. Notably, he did not publicly declare withholding assent but advised the Chief Minister to call for a fresh session, specifying the agenda for permission. The State of Punjab, aggrieved by the Governor's inaction, sought relief from the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.