When the Congress was in power at the Centre, Governors were widely used to dismiss opposition governments. But in the last few years, elected governments in states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab etc. have approached the Supreme Court against the Governor. The Governor is the constitutional head of the state. But the elected governments in some states have to fight against them legally; Criticism has also increased that some governors have behaved more like BJP functionaries than constitutional heads.

A Bill passed in the Assembly does not become a law unless it receives the assent of the Governor. Although Article 200 of the Constitution provides for this, there is no time limit within which the Governor must give his assent to the Bill. Furthermore, Article 200 provides that if the Governor is of the opinion that a bill passed by the Assembly would be ‘encumbered by the powers of the High Courts’, it may be referred to the President for consideration. This loophole is the cause of the Bill-Dilemma. The then Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari handled the dilemma of the government in this way when Maha Vikas Aghadi was in government in Maharashtra. The non-BJP-ruled states of Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, West Bengal have appealed to the Supreme Court because the governors are not taking decisions on the approved bills. Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjay Chandrachud gave earpieces to the concerned governors.

After the Supreme Court came under severe pressure on the governor, new loopholes were found to prevent these bills from being passed. After hearing from the Supreme Court, the governors of the states of Kerala and Punjab redeemed themselves by sending the pending bills for a period of 10 months to two years to the President for consideration. Of course, although there is a clear provision in the constitution that which bills can be sent to the President, the governor also twisted it. If a State Bill is presented for consideration, the President consults the Central Government. This is where the real magic lies. It was inevitable that the central government would give an adverse opinion to the states of its opposing views. There was no possibility of anything different on the bills of Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal. Punjab, Kerala, W. The President refused or withheld assent to some bills of the states of Bengal, on the advice of the Centre.

If the President withholds a bill, it is interpreted as disapproval. The Left Front government in Kerala has moved the Supreme Court against the President’s decision to withhold the Bills. In the federal system, the powers of the center and the states have been decentralized. But the BJP government at the center has now started trying to curb the legislative powers of the state legislatures. It is unfortunate to use the highest mechanisms like the President or the Governor for this purpose. Article 361 of the Constitution protects the President or the Governor from judicial process so that he can act impartially. This is why the court cannot order the President or the Governor. The Chief Justice had recently decided to review whether the Governor could be protected in criminal cases as this provision started to be misused.

The ‘Letter Notification Office’ has officially mentioned that Prime Minister Narendra Modi appealed to the governors to “create an ideal model of governance in the Raj Bhavan” in the Governor’s Council held on August 2 and 3 at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. With the dilemma of non-BJP states so obvious, all Indians will be curious as to what kind of new ‘ideal model’ will be to avoid it!