The recommendations made by the Punchhi Commission on Centre-State Relations assume significance as Governor Arif Mohammed Khan has refused to sign the controversial University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 and the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Bill, 2022.
Though successive governments sat on the proposals by the commission set up in 2007 by the then United Progressive Alliance government, it recommends that the Governor should make his decision on the Bill passed by the State legislature within a maximum period of six months.
In the chapter titled ‘Role of Governor in the Management of Centre-State Relations’, the commission points out that the Governor is expected to declare that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President, in respect of Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State.
“He has the discretion also to return the Bill (except Money Bill) for reconsideration of the House together with the message he might convey for the purpose. If on such reconsideration the Bill is passed again, with or without amendments, the Governor is obliged to give his assent,” it says.
The commission, which submitted its report in March 2010, states that it is necessary to prescribe a time limit within which the Governor should take the decision whether to grant assent or to reserve it for consideration of the President.
It had earlier recommended that the time limit of six months prescribed for the State Legislature to act on the President’s message on a reserved Bill should be the time limit for the President also to decide on assenting or withholding of assent.
In the sub-section in Chapter 4 titled ‘Powers of the Governor in the Context of Harmonious Centre-State Relations’, the commission says that the scope of discretionary powers under Article 163(2) [of the Constitution] has to be narrowly construed, effectively dispelling the apprehension, if any, that the so-called discretionary powers extend to all the functions that the Governor is empowered under the Constitution.
“Article 163 does not give the Governor a general discretionary power to act against or without the advice of his Council of Ministers. In fact, the area for the exercise of discretion is limited and even in this limited area, his choice of action should not be nor appear to be arbitrary or fanciful. It must be a choice dictated by reason, activated by good faith and tempered by caution,” it says.
