Constitutional Powers Of The Governor In Reservation Of A Bill: A Comparative Analysis
- IJLLR Journal
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
Dr. Poosarla Bayola Kiran, Assistant Professor, NALSAR University of Law
Gedela Keerthana, Research Assistant, Centre for International Trade and Business Laws, NALSAR University of Law
ABSTRACT
The article analyses the Powers of the Governor in reserving a Bill and a comparative analysis of powers of Governor’s in different Countries. This article examines the evolution and contemporary implications of executive discretion in the legislative processes of India, Ireland, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. By analysing historical debates, constitutional provisions, and recent political developments, the paper highlights how each country navigates the balance between executive authority and legislative sovereignty. In India, the Constituent Assembly debates of 1949 revealed a deliberate move to limit the Governor's discretionary powers, particularly concerning the assent to bills. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, reflecting a commitment to parliamentary democracy. This intent was further reinforced by judicial interpretations, affirming that the Governor's discretion is constitutionally constrained. Ireland's 1937 debates on presidential powers under the Constitution underscored a preference for a ceremonial head of state with limited executive discretion. However, provisions like Article 26, allowing the President to refer bills to the Supreme Court for constitutional review, introduced a nuanced check on legislative actions. Notably, the President's power to refuse dissolution of the Dáil, as exercised in 1982, illustrated the potential for executive intervention in parliamentary procedures. In the United States, the Constitution grants the President significant legislative powers, including the veto. Historical instances, such as President Andrew Jackson's veto of the Maysville Road Bill in 1830, demonstrate the use of executive discretion to influence legislative outcomes. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 further exemplifies legislative attempts to curb executive overreach, aiming to reassert congressional authority over military engagements. Canada's disallowance and reservation powers, vestiges of colonial governance, have been subjects of debate regarding their relevance in modern federalism. While seldom invoked, these powers have occasionally been exercised, as in the case of Saskatchewan's mining legislation in the 1960s. Contemporary discussions focus on the necessity of these powers in a mature democracy and their alignment with principles of self-governance. The United Kingdom's constitutional framework, characterized by parliamentary sovereignty, traditionally limits executive discretion in legislative matters. The royal assent process, though a formality, symbolizes the constitutional monarchy's role in the legislative process. Debates surrounding the royal prerogative powers, including the prerogative of mercy and the dissolution of Parliament, reflect ongoing discussions about the balance between tradition and democratic accountability. The Article underscores the importance of maintaining a dynamic equilibrium between executive and legislative powers to uphold democratic principles and ensure responsive governance.
