Datar: before lunch I was at Article 213- it gives a rough idea of scope of Article 200. This ordinance is done on satisfication of the council of ministers-there is no stage such as that of the Bill. There are multiple articles which require sanction of the President.

In case of ordinance, Governor is cast upon the duty to not promulgate the ordinance-In Krishna Kumar, it is said that at the stage of Bill there is no repugnancy; it is passed then when the issue arises, it can be struck down for violating Article 14.

My submission is, Governor has only options and no discretion. Suppose a bill is potentially repugnant to parliamentary law in List III, can the Governor say I will not assent? Only ground when the Governor can suo moto reserve for the President is the second proviso. It is an exception to following aid and advice.

In two-judge bench, the Governor gave reasons why he did not give assent as it would be contrary to List III-my submission, even if the Bill is in teeth of repugnancy, in most legislatures it is often does with the application of mind, they see the provisions whether it is repugnant to central law. For example, if TN wants to make such law, it will tell the Governor to refer to the assent of President then it goes to Article 254(2), though inconsistent, it will be valid for the State of Tamil Nadu. State cabinet can request Governor to send it for President. Suppose State does not take protection of Article 254(2) and it does not want to refer to the President, it will run the risk of Article 254(1).

The point, I am making, the Governor can't be a constitutional filter.

J Narasimha: what you are saying is legislature can make invalid law? its survival depends on the Governor. but question is, the discretion in 213 is unavailable for 200. One is qualitative discretion another is executive discretion.