New Delhi, July 26
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Centre and the secretaries to the governors of Kerala and West Bengal on petitions filed by the two state governments against denial of assent to bills and referring those for the consideration of the President.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries to the two governors to respond to the petitions after senior advocate KK Venugopal submitted on behalf of the Kerala Government that there was a need for the top court to lay down guidelines as to when a Governors can return a Bill or refer it to the President.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the West Bengal Government, said every time the matter was listed in the Supreme Court, the governor referred bills to the President.
“Let replies be filed in three weeks and let a joint note be submitted by the States,” said the Bench – which also included Justice JB Paridwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
Venugopal said, “This a confusion in the minds of various Governors in the country as to what their powers are in regard to assenting to bills. In the present case, out of eight bills, two of them had been kept pending for 23 months. One for 15 months. Another for 13 months. And others for 10 months. Now, it is a very sad state of affairs. The Constitution itself is being rendered otiose.”
He said the state was challenging the very reference of the bills to the President. While giving her assent to three bills, President Droupadi Murmmu chose to withhold assent to four bills—University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021, the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, and the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022. The Kerala Government has also challenged the President withholding assent for four of the seven bills referred by the Kerala Governor.
Faced with recurring instances of governors “sitting” over bills passed by state assemblies for years, the Supreme Court had on November 29, 2023 said it will consider laying down guidelines as to when the governors can refer bills to the President of India for assent.
Disapproving of Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan “sitting” for two years on bills passed by the state legislative assembly, a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud had agreed to the Kerala Government’s request to clarify the legal position as to when governors can refer bills to the President.
Maintaining that the Governor is intended to be a constitutional statesman guiding the state government on matters of constitutional concern, the Supreme Court had in November 2023 ruled that he can’t veto a Bill enacted by the legislative assembly.
“The Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers. However, this power cannot be used to thwart the normal course of law-making by the State Legislatures,” a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud had said in its November 10, 2023 verdict on Punjab Government’s petition against Governor Banwarilal Purohit sitting over Bills passed by the state assembly. The verdict was made public on November 23, 2023.
Interpreting Article 200 of the Constitution, the Bench said, “The Governor has three options available when a Bill which has been passed by the State Legislature is presented for assent. The Governor “shall declare” (i) either that he assents to the Bill; or (ii) that he withholds assents therefrom; or (iii) that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President.”
However, it said, “The concluding phrase “shall not withhold assent therefrom” is a clear indicator that the exercise of the power under the first proviso is relatable to the withholding of the assent by the Governor to the Bill in the first instance. That is why in the concluding part, the first proviso indicates that upon the passing of the Bill by the legislature either with or without amendments, the Governor shall not withhold assent.
“The role which is ascribed by the first proviso to the Governor is recommendatory in nature and it does not bind the state legislature,” the top court had clarified.
