A five-member Constitution bench, presiding over a presidential reference seeking Supreme Court’s views on whether it could lay down timelines and procedures for the President and governors, on Wednesday queried can a governor not examine the legislative competence of a bill passed by the state legislature.
The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai questioned the states, challenging the Presidential reference, that if a Governor finds that a law passed by the state legislature is repugnant to the Central legislation can he/she not exercise his/her power?.
The Bench further questioned whether a Governor is supposed to act as a postman by merely granting assent to bills passed by the state legislature without examining them.
The counsels for states of Karnataka, West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh argued that Centre was seeking to “abrogate the fulcrum of Constitution” vide the Presidential reference which, according to them, is an appeal in disguise.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the West Bengal government, contended that the Presidential reference must be returned unanswered.
Sibal argued that let the Centre challenge the April ruling of the top court by filing a review. Vide its April ruling, a division bench of the apex court, had laid down timelines for Governors for grant of their assent to bills passed by state legislature.
Sibal further argued that “constitution is a living document. It owes genesis to history but owes it allegiance to the future and you (judges) are the future because you interpret it. Let us not fall into a trap where Governor becomes an impediment in the functioning of the Constitution”.
Appearing on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, senior advocate and former Union minister Anand Sharma contended that permitting the Governor to withhold a bill permanently would lead to “functional disharmony” and “nullify the will of people”.
He further argued that courts are the final arbiter when it comes to Constitution and that is the strength of the Indian republic.
At the last hearing (Tuesday), the Constitution bench had verbally remarked that certain instances of delay in granting assent to bills cannot justify the laying down of a blanket timeline for governors and the president.
