Article 200

Article 200 of the Constitution of India defines the procedure by which Bills passed by a State Legislature receive the Governor’s assent and become law. It applies uniformly to both unicameral and bicameral legislatures, thereby forming an essential part of the state legislative process. The Article delineates the Governor’s powers and responsibilities once a Bill is presented for approval, striking a balance between legislative authority and executive oversight.

Constitutional Framework and Purpose

The purpose of Article 200 is to ensure that all Bills passed by the State Legislature undergo executive scrutiny before becoming law. This constitutional check allows the Governor to ensure that legislation complies with constitutional principles, public policy, and the federal structure.
Once a Bill—whether ordinary or money—is passed by both Houses (in bicameral states) or by the Legislative Assembly (in unicameral states), it is presented to the Governor for assent. The Governor’s decision determines the next stage of the Bill’s legislative journey.

Governor’s Options on Receiving a Bill

Under Article 200, the Governor has three distinct options when a Bill is presented for assent:

1. Give Assent to the Bill:If the Governor gives assent, the Bill becomes an Act of the State Legislature and takes effect according to its provisions. This is the normal course for most legislation.
2. Withhold Assent:The Governor may withhold assent, effectively rejecting the Bill. This power is rarely exercised, as it may appear contrary to the spirit of responsible government, where the Governor functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
3. Reserve the Bill for the Consideration of the President:The Governor may reserve certain Bills for the President of India’s consideration. Once reserved, the Bill cannot become law without the President’s assent, as per Article 201. This option is generally used when the Bill:
   • Conflicts with central laws,
   • Affects the powers of the High Court,
   • Has implications on national interest, or
   • Raises constitutional questions requiring Union intervention.

Governor’s Power to Return Bills for Reconsideration

For non-Money Bills, Article 200 empowers the Governor to return the Bill to the Legislature with a message requesting reconsideration of the entire Bill or specific provisions. This provision gives the Governor a limited suspensive veto, allowing reconsideration but not permanent obstruction.
Upon return, the Legislature must reconsider the Bill, taking into account the Governor’s observations. If the Legislature passes the Bill again—with or without amendments—and presents it to the Governor, the Governor is obliged to give assent. At this stage, the Governor cannot withhold assent, even if previous objections remain.
This mandatory assent after reconsideration underscores the principle of legislative supremacy within the state and limits the Governor’s discretion to a one-time review.

Treatment of Money Bills

A significant distinction is drawn between Money Bills and other Bills:

• The Governor cannot return Money Bills for reconsideration.
• A Money Bill must either receive the Governor’s assent or be reserved for the President’s consideration.

This limitation reflects the constitutional priority of ensuring the smooth passage of financial legislation essential for governance and fiscal stability.

Reservation of Bills for the President’s Consideration

Certain categories of Bills must be reserved for the President under specific constitutional or legal provisions. Examples include:

• Bills that derogate from the powers of the High Court under Article 200.
• Bills that seek to impose restrictions on trade, commerce, or intercourse within the state, contrary to Article 304(b).
• Bills that the Governor considers to affect national interest or the Constitution’s integrity.

Once reserved, the Bill falls under Article 201, where the President may either give or withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the Bill for reconsideration by the Legislature.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Law

The judiciary has clarified the constitutional scope and limitations of the Governor’s powers under Article 200 through several landmark rulings:

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): This early case discussed the relationship between legislative powers and the Governor’s role in granting assent, emphasising that assent is part of the legislative process rather than an executive act.
• State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952): The Supreme Court recognised the Governor’s discretion to reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration, affirming the constitutional validity of this safeguard.
• K. K. Verma v. State of Maharashtra (1960): The Court held that the Governor’s discretion to return a Bill for reconsideration must be exercised in good faith and within the bounds of constitutional propriety.
• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Though primarily dealing with constitutional amendments, this case reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine, limiting arbitrary executive interference in legislative processes.
• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The Court examined the Governor’s discretionary powers, asserting that while the Governor has certain constitutional responsibilities, these must align with the principles of federalism and democratic accountability.

Through these cases, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the Governor’s assent powers are not absolute and must be exercised within the framework of responsible government.

Relationship with Article 201

Article 200 operates closely with Article 201, which deals with the President’s assent to Bills reserved by the Governor. If the President gives assent, the Bill becomes law; if the President withholds assent, it lapses. The Governor’s power of reservation thus acts as a constitutional filter ensuring that state legislation remains consistent with national policy and constitutional norms.

Significance and Constitutional Balance

Article 200 ensures a delicate balance between:

• Legislative sovereignty, allowing elected representatives to make laws; and
• Executive oversight, enabling the Governor to review Bills for constitutional or policy concerns.

This dual mechanism upholds both federal harmony and constitutional integrity, ensuring that state laws operate within national limits while respecting democratic mandates.
The provision also underscores the Governor’s dual role: as a representative of the Union, obligated to safeguard the Constitution, and as the constitutional head of the state, bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Practical Implications in Governance

In practice, Article 200 significantly influences the pace and timing of law-making at the state level. The Governor’s decision to reserve or return a Bill can affect legislative efficiency and the implementation of key policies.
Instances of delayed or prolonged withholding of assent have led to debates on whether such actions contravene constitutional intent. The Supreme Court and constitutional experts have consistently asserted that assent powers must be exercised expeditiously, in the spirit of cooperative federalism.

Related Provisions

• Article 201: Governs the President’s assent to Bills reserved by the Governor.
• Article 202: Relates to the introduction of Money Bills and financial procedures.
• Article 163: Defines the Governor’s functions and discretion in performing constitutional duties.

Constitutional and Democratic Importance

Article 200 serves as a cornerstone of legislative-executive interaction at the state level. It safeguards the legislative prerogative of the elected Assembly while providing a constitutional check against potential overreach or inconsistency with national law.