Supreme Court Issues Notices to Central Government, West Bengal,Kerala Governors Concerning Denial of Assent to Bills
(Judicial Quest News Network)
New Delhi, July,27,2024
In a dramatic turn of events, the Supreme Court has issued notices to the governors of Kerala and West Bengal, addressing the ongoing delay in clearing state bills. The court’s decision comes in response to petitions filed by the state governments, which accuse their respective governors of inaction—a concern that has surfaced repeatedly in states governed by parties other than the BJP.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.P. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, has called for detailed responses from the governors of Kerala and West Bengal, as well as the Central Government. The court has set a deadline of three weeks for replies and has requested a joint note from the states involved.
The petitions highlight a troubling pattern of delays. West Bengal’s petition, notably filed by the state government, points to Governor C.V. Ananda Bose’s delay in clearing bills. This case follows a Public Interest Litigation by Sayan Mukherjee, which raised similar issues and prompted the court to issue a notice in April.
In Kerala, Governor Arif Mohammed Khan faces a similar accusation. Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal appearing for the State of Kerala argued that Khan’s delays are unconstitutional, with some bills pending for over eight months. Venugopal stressed that such delays are a direct affront to the Constitution and the duties of the governors.
The Petition is filed by Astha Sharma AoR Supreme Court during the proceedings, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing West Bengal, noted that the issues in both states share commonalities. He suggested that these cases could be framed together, reflecting a broader issue of gubernatorial inaction affecting non-BJP states.
Senior Advocate Jaydeep Gupta, also representing West Bengal, mentioned that the Governor has cleared only a portion of the pending bills, a pattern that has echoed in Tamil Nadu as well.
This move by the Supreme Court highlights a larger trend of gubernatorial delays affecting state legislation, particularly in non-BJP ruled states. In 2023, similar petitions were filed against governors in Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, with the court criticizing delays and reaffirming the governors’ constitutional duty to act promptly on bills.
On November 10, 2023, the court had already rebuked Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for withholding assent to 12 bills. The court reaffirmed its stance on November 23, 2023, underscoring that governors, as symbolic heads of state, cannot impede the legislative process.
This ongoing scrutiny underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to uphold constitutional mandates and address bureaucratic delays impacting state governance.
The State government has raised concerns regarding the delay in the Governor’s action on several bills, including those of significant public interest. The plea argues that the Governor has failed to act “as soon as possible” on these bills, as mandated by the proviso to Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.
On February 23 and 29, the Home Ministry informed the State government that the President had withheld assent to four out of seven bills, including the University Laws (Amendment) No. 2 Bill, 2022, and the University Laws (Amendment) No. 3 Bill, 2022. The Constitution does not specify the timeframe within which the President must grant assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and submitted for consideration.
Article 361 of the Constitution states that the President, or a state government, is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of their constitutional powers and duties, nor for any act done in the performance of those duties.
In its petition, the West Bengal government contends that the refusal to grant assent without providing reasons is inconsistent with Article 200 of the Constitution. This Article outlines the procedure for bills passed by a state legislature to be presented to the Governor, who can either grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
Under Article 200, once a bill is passed by the legislative assembly of a state, or by both houses in states with a legislative council, it is presented to the Governor. The Governor must then declare whether to assent to the bill, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President’s review.
