The Governor has constitutional discretion to withhold assent to bills without a defined time limit but must act responsibly in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers.

JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, CJ

Instant public interest writ petition is filed by one Mr. P.V.Jeevesh, a practicing Advocate, seeking for the following reliefs:

(i) Declare that the actions of the Hon'ble Governor in withholding the bills indefinitely, without exercising the discretionary powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India are contumacious, arbitrary, despotic and antithetical to the democratic values, ideals of the Cabinet form of Government, and principles of democratic Constitutionalism and federalism;

(ii) Declare that the Hon'ble Governor has no power to withhold the bills ad infinitum;

(iii) Declare that the Hon'ble Governor has the Constitutional obligation under Article 200 of the Constitution of India to exercise the discretionary powers on the bills without any procrastination;

(iv) Declare that the Hon'ble Governor shall exercise the discretionary powers, enshrined under Article 200 of the Constitution of India , on the legislative bills presented by the State Legislature, within a period of two months from the date of receiving the same;

(v) To strike down or delete the phrase, “or that he withholds assent therefrom”, from Article 200 of the Constitution of India ;

(vi) To issue a direction in the nature of recommendation or suggestion or judicial advice or as a reminder call to the respondents 1 and 2, pointing out the necessity of amending Articles 111 and 200 of the Constitution, by deleting the wording, “or that he withholds assent therefrom”, and prescribing a time limit within which the President or Governor has to exercise their discretionary powers concerning the bills.

(vii) Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and take a decision about the Constitutional amendment with regard to the prescription of time;

(viii) To issue a direction in the nature of recommendation or suggestion or judicial advice or as a reminder call to the 1st and 2nd respondents to enforce, by way of appropriate amendment to the Constitution, the recommendations proposed by THE SARKARIA COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION and THE M. M. PUNCHI COMMISSION, with regard to the prescription of time.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are; petitioner claims to be a practicing lawyer for the last 15 years. It is contended that the action on the part of the Governor withholding bills passed by the Legislative Assembly of the State has led to a Constitutional imbroglio in the State; arising especially due to the non- exercise of the discretionary powers of the Hon'ble Governor on the bills presented by the State Legislature.

3. It is his further contention that in a parliamentary democratic system of Government, the representatives of the people reflect the political desires and aspirations of the legislative bodies and that the Members of the Legislative Assembly reflect the mandate of the people. According to him, a proper and efficient legislative function is the people's mandate. According to the petitioner, the said function is a part of the fundamental rights, coming under Article 21 of the Constitution of India .

4. By filing the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks to enforce the said fundamental rights of the people in the State. Neither the respondents nor any other authority has come forward so far to enforce the said fundamental rights of the people. Even though the State Cabinet has advised the Hon'ble Governor to assent to the bills, the Hon'ble Governor has not so far been given assent or adopted any