1. Whether the first proviso to Article 200 provides an independent course of action or is attached to the option of withholding assent?
The first proviso is not an independent fourth course of action but is intrinsically attached to the option of withholding assent. Once the Governor withholds assent, he must mandatorily follow the first proviso procedure, including returning the bill with a message as soon as possible. The expression shall not withhold assent therefrom confirms this attachment. (Para
169
,
170
,
171
,
172
,
173
,
174
,
175
,
176
,
177
,
178
,
179
,
180
,
181
,
182
,
183
,
184
,
185
,
186
,
187
,
188
,
189
,
190
,
191
,
192
,
193
,
194
,
195
,
196
,
197
,
200
,
201
,
202
,
203
,
208
,
209
,
210
,
434
)
2. Whether the Governor can reserve a bill for presidential consideration after it has been repassed by the State Legislature under the first proviso?
No, the Governor cannot reserve a reconsidered bill for presidential consideration once the first proviso procedure has been set in motion, except in extraordinary situations where the bill in the second round is materially different from the first instance. The Governor must assent to a bill presented after compliance with the first proviso. (Para
198
,
199
,
200
,
201
,
202
,
203
,
204
,
205
,
206
,
207
,
208
,
209
,
210
,
211
,
434
)
3. Whether there is a constitutionally prescribed time-limit for the Governor to act under Article 200?
Article 200 contains no express time-limit, but the Court held the Governor must act within a reasonable time. Inaction beyond prescribed judicial time-limits makes the Governor's conduct amenable to judicial review, and the Court may deem assent to have been granted in exceptional cases of undue delay. (Para
212
,
213
,
214
,
215
,
216
,
217
,
218
,
219
,
220
,
221
,
222
,
223
,
224
,
225
,
226
,
227
,
228
,
229
,
230
,
231
,
232
,
233
,
234
,
235
,
236
,
237
,
238
,
239
,
240
,
241
,
242
,
243
,
244
,
245
,
246
,
247
,
248
,
249
,
250
,
251
,
434
)
4. Whether the Governor's exercise of discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review?
Yes, the Governor's exercise of discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. No constitutional power is beyond the purview of courts. The Governor's actions can be examined for unconstitutionality, arbitrariness, mala fides, and breach of the aid-and-advice requirement, particularly where discretion is exercised contrary to the Council of Ministers' advice. (Para
31
,
32
,
33
,
34
,
35
,
320
,
321
,
322
,
323
,
324
,
325
,
326
,
327
,
328
,
329
,
330
,
331
,
332
,
333
,
334
,
335
,
336
,
337
,
338
,
339
,
340
,
341
,
342
,
343
,
344
,
345
,
346
,
347
,
348
,
349
,
350
,
351
,
352
,
353
,
354
,
355
,
356
,
357
,
358
,
359
,
360
,
361
,
362
,
363
,
364
,
365
,
366
,
367
,
368
,
434
)
5. Whether pocket veto or absolute veto exists under Article 200 of the Constitution?
Neither pocket veto nor absolute veto exists under Article 200. The substantive part uses shall declare making the Governor's choice mandatory, and the first proviso's as soon as possible injects expediency. The Governor cannot keep bills pending indefinitely or declare simpliciter withholding of assent without following the first proviso procedure. (Para
31
,
196
,
197
,
208
,
209
,
434
)