In Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala reported in 1961 SCC OnLine SC 361, two questions fell for the consideration of Supreme Court; first, whether a bill which has been pending for assent before the President or the Governor could be said to have lapsed with the dissolving or dissolution of the State legislative assembly and secondly, whether Article 200 mandates that a bill sent back by the President or the Governor for reconsideration must be looked into by the very same House that originally passed it.
Before looking into the effect of the dissolution of the House on bills pending before the Governor for assent, the Court, while examining the effect of prorogation of the House on the bills pending before the State legislature, observed that Article 196 of the Constitution that deals with the introduction and passing of bills in the State legislature reinforces that the parliamentary form of government established under the Constitution is markedly different from the Parliament in England inasmuch as clause (3) of Article 196 explicitly stipulates that a bill pending in the legislature of a State will not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the House or Houses thereof.
Thereafter, the Court observed that Article 196(5) provides for three categories of cases where a bill pending before a Legislative Assembly would lapse upon its dissolution. Those are as follows:
a. A bill pending before the Legislative Assembly of a unicameral State legislature;
b. A bill pending before the Legislative Assembly of a bicameral State legislature; or
c. A bill which originated in the Legislative Assembly and is yet to reach the Legislative Council.
In light of the aforesaid, the Court reached the conclusion that since Article 196 only stipulates as to when a bill pending in the State legislature could be said to have lapsed, be it the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council, any bill which has been passed by the State legislature and is pending assent of the Governor or President, would be outside the ambit of the doctrine of lapse of pending business as contained in Article 196(5) of the Constitution. Had the intent of the framers of the Constitution been otherwise, a specific provision to that effect providing for lapse of a bill awaiting assent would have been inserted.
The natural corollary of the omission of the aforesaid is that Article 196(5) is exhaustive in nature, and only the circumstances enumerated therein would result in any lapse of a pending bill, as otherwise there was no need for inserting clause (5) in Article 196 after having already provided the situations where a bill would not lapse in clause(s) (3) and (4) of the Constitution respectively.
Thereafter, the Court adverted to Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution respectively in order to determine the effect of dissolution on bills pending the assent of the Governor or the President. Adverting to the procedure prescribed under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, the Court noted that both the Articles do not prescribe a time-limit within which the Governor or President are required to come to a decision on the bill presented to him unlike other provisions in the Constitution where it was felt necessary and expedient to prescribe a time-limit such as Articles 197(1)(b) and (2)(b) respectively.
This, in the opinion of the Court, necessarily meant that the omission in prescribing a time-limit within which the Governor or the President should reach a decision under Articles 200 and 201 respectively suggests that the framers of the Constitution knew that a bill pending the assent of the Governor or the President does not stand the risk of getting lapsed on the dissolution of the Assembly.
Any other contrary view would lead to a chilling effect whereby a fair number of bills which may have been passed by the Assembly during the last months of its existence, may be exposed to the risk of lapse, consequent to the dissolution of the Assembly, unless assent is either withheld or granted before the date of the dissolution, which could not have been the intention in the absence of a time-limit under Articles 200 and 201 respectively.
The relevant observations read as under:
“15. It is clear that if a Bill pending the assent of the Governor or the President is held to lapse on the dissolution of the Assembly it is not unlikely that a fair number of Bills which may have been passed by the Assembly, say during the last six months of its existence, may be exposed to the risk of lapse consequent on the dissolution of the Assembly, unless assent is either withheld or granted before the date of the dissolution. If we look at the relevant provisions of Articles 200 and 201 from this point of view it would be significant that neither Article provides for a time limit within which the Governor or the President, should come to a decision on the Bill referred to him for his assent. Where it appeared necessary and expedient to prescribe a time limit the Constitution has made appropriate provisions in that behalf (vide : Article 197(1)(b) and (2)(b)).
In fact the proviso to Article 201 requires that the House to which the Bill is remitted with a message from the President shall reconsider it accordingly within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of such message. Therefore, the failure to make any provision as to the time within which the Governor or the President should reach a decision may suggest that the Constitution-makers knew that a Bill which was pending the assent of the Governor or the President did not stand the risk of lapse on the dissolution of the Assembly. That is why no time limit was prescribed by Articles 200 and 201.
Therefore, in our opinion, the scheme of Articles 200 and 201 supports the conclusion that a Bill pending the assent of the Governor or the President does not lapse as a result of the dissolution of the Assembly, and that incidentally shows that the provisions of Article 196(5) are exhaustive.”