NEW DELHI: A week after agreeing to test the validity of blanket constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution to governors , the Supreme Court on Friday said it would consider framing guidelines for governors in withholding assent to Bills passed by legislature or referring them to the President .
Opposition-ruled states Kerala and West Bengal on Friday joined Telangana and Tamil Nadu in accusing governors of whimsically exercising powers regarding Bills. Senior advocates K K Venugopal, A M Singhvi and Jaideep Gupta, appearing for Kerala and WB, argued in unison that it has become a trend with the governors to whimsically delay assent to Bills passed by legislative assembly and reserve them for the President’s consideration.
A bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud, and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notices to the Union ministry of home affairs and the secretaries the governors for a comprehensive exercise in interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions relating to the powers of the governors regarding Bills.
A week ago, the SC had entertained a petition by a woman, allegedly sexually harassed by WB governor C V Ananda Bose, to examine the constitutional validity of the immunity from criminal cases given to governors under Article 361 of the Constitution. The woman had alleged that the WB police was not investigating the case because of immunity enjoyed by the governor.
Venugopal said, “There is a confusion in the minds of the governors as to what are their powers regarding assenting to bills. In Kerala, out of 8 bills, two have been kept pending for 23 months, one for 15 months, another for 13 months and three others for 10 months. This is a very sad state of affairs. The Constitution itself is being rendered otiose. We have also challenged his decision to refer some bills to the President.”
For WB, Gupta said after the state gave notice of mentioning its petition before SC, the governor’s office has intimated that some of the Bills are reserved for President’s consideration. Singhvi, who had earlier appeared for TN and now argued on behalf of WB, said in Tamil Nadu too the same trend was witnessed. “The moment petitions are filed before the SC, the governor clears some bills and sends some to the President. The next date some more Bills are cleared. Why should the governor’s office act only when the petitions are listed for hearing in SC?
Venugopal said, “Referring to the President seems to be an easy way out for the governor when they do not want to cooperate with the legislative assembly. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.”
In the tussle between AAP government and Punjab governor over Bills, CJI Chandrachud-led bench had in its Nov 10, 2023 judgment said if unbridled power to sit over a Bill is given to “unelected head of State” in the governor, he would “virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse”.
“Such a course of action would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance,” said Justice Chandrachud, who had authored the judgment. “The governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever… 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 lawmaking by the State Legislatures,” the SC had ruled.
Opposition-ruled states Kerala and West Bengal on Friday joined Telangana and Tamil Nadu in accusing governors of whimsically exercising powers regarding Bills. Senior advocates K K Venugopal, A M Singhvi and Jaideep Gupta, appearing for Kerala and WB, argued in unison that it has become a trend with the governors to whimsically delay assent to Bills passed by legislative assembly and reserve them for the President’s consideration.
A bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud, and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notices to the Union ministry of home affairs and the secretaries the governors for a comprehensive exercise in interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions relating to the powers of the governors regarding Bills.
A week ago, the SC had entertained a petition by a woman, allegedly sexually harassed by WB governor C V Ananda Bose, to examine the constitutional validity of the immunity from criminal cases given to governors under Article 361 of the Constitution. The woman had alleged that the WB police was not investigating the case because of immunity enjoyed by the governor.
Venugopal said, “There is a confusion in the minds of the governors as to what are their powers regarding assenting to bills. In Kerala, out of 8 bills, two have been kept pending for 23 months, one for 15 months, another for 13 months and three others for 10 months. This is a very sad state of affairs. The Constitution itself is being rendered otiose. We have also challenged his decision to refer some bills to the President.”
For WB, Gupta said after the state gave notice of mentioning its petition before SC, the governor’s office has intimated that some of the Bills are reserved for President’s consideration. Singhvi, who had earlier appeared for TN and now argued on behalf of WB, said in Tamil Nadu too the same trend was witnessed. “The moment petitions are filed before the SC, the governor clears some bills and sends some to the President. The next date some more Bills are cleared. Why should the governor’s office act only when the petitions are listed for hearing in SC?
Venugopal said, “Referring to the President seems to be an easy way out for the governor when they do not want to cooperate with the legislative assembly. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.”
In the tussle between AAP government and Punjab governor over Bills, CJI Chandrachud-led bench had in its Nov 10, 2023 judgment said if unbridled power to sit over a Bill is given to “unelected head of State” in the governor, he would “virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse”.
“Such a course of action would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance,” said Justice Chandrachud, who had authored the judgment. “The governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever… 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 lawmaking by the State Legislatures,” the SC had ruled.
You may also like
Do not take ibuprofen with these other medicines, NHS warns
Manipur Remains Tense, Mysterious Flying Object Near Airport Triggers Security Alert: 10 Developments
'Shivam Bhaje' Amasses 100 Million Streaming Minutes On OTT Platforms Amazon Prime And Aha
Madhya Pradesh: After Indore-Manmad Rail Line Approval, Demand For Airport Arises
