New Delhi, Sep 3 (PTI) — The West Bengal government has informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a governor is not entitled to examine the legislative competence of a bill once it has been passed by the assembly. The argument was presented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, during a session before a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai.
Sibal argued that since India's Independence, there have been scarcely any instances where the President has withheld a bill passed by Parliament, asserting that such bills represent the will of the people. The counsel made this submission on the seventh day of the hearing regarding the Presidential reference on whether the court could set timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.
Sibal emphasized that the legislative competence of a bill is a matter for the courts to decide, asserting, "A legislation can be challenged in a court of law by citizens or by somebody else. It's in the rarest and rare case that a Governor says I cannot give assent to the bills and withhold it."
He stressed the urgency of implementing the people's will and maintained that Parliament is sovereign. Addressing CJI Gavai's inquiry about whether a governor could reserve a bill for the President when finding it repugnant to central legislation, Sibal responded that such situations are rare and affirmed that a bill passed by the legislature carries a presumption of constitutionality, subject to court testing.
Justice Surya Kant pointed out that the governor would have to scrutinize whether the bill conflicts with existing laws and could not merely function as a postman or a superior legislative body. Sibal countered by highlighting the equivalency of the state legislature’s sovereignty to that of Parliament and questioned whether the governor should have the liberty to delay actions, potentially leading to constitutional discord.
He argued, "Sovereignty of the state legislature is as important as sovereignty of Parliament. Should the governor be allowed to delay this? This is an important question…You cannot create a discord…otherwise it will a break down. The Constitution has to be interpreted in such a way that it is workable. This court has to ensure that there is no area of discord. So the key word here was as soon as possible. There is an element of immediacy…it is the will of the people." The hearing continues.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that courts must address constitutional queries, irrespective of their political nature. Nonetheless, the court expressed its role as limited to interpreting the Constitution in addressing the Presidential reference concerning timelines for the consideration of state assembly bills by governors and the President.
On August 26, the court pondered its position if a governor were to indefinitely delay assent to bills, questioning whether independent powers to withhold a bill could halt even money bills. The query arose as some BJP-governed states argued for the autonomy of governors and the President in legislative assent, asserting that judicial pronouncements cannot authorize assent to laws.
State governments further contended that the judiciary is not a remedy for all governance issues.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court's advice on whether judicial directives could delineate time limits for the discretion exercised by the President concerning bills passed by state assemblies.
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)