NEW DELHI: Trinamool Congress-ruled West Bengal and CPM-led LDF government in Kerala, who have had prolonged faceoff with their respective...
NEW DELHI: Trinamool Congress-ruled West Bengal and CPM-led LDF government in Kerala, who have had prolonged faceoff with their respective governors, would finally hope of some resolution with the Supreme Court taking note of their pleas alleging denial of assent to bills passed by the respective legislative assemblies. The top court, in the past, has taken very strict view of governors sitting over bills passed by state assemblies, giving hope to the two states.
The CPM-led Left Democratic Front government of Kerala had moved the top court in March alleging that certain bills cleared by legislative assembly were referred to President by the governor and these were still pending assent.
West Bengal, in its plea, has alleged that the state governor was withholding assent on eight bills. The state also claimed that West Bengal governor had referred some of the pending bills to President when he got to know that the matter was coming up for hearing in the top court.
The top court issued notices to Union ministry of home affairs and the secretaries of Kerala governor Arif Mohammad Khan and his West Bengal counterpart CV Ananda Bose and sought their replies within three weeks.
The bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also directed the Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government to make the home ministry a party to the petition.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, challenged the reference of bills to the President. Kerala said its plea pertained to the acts of the governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the president. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it said.
Kerala's counsel added these bills were pending with the governor for as long as about two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose".
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for West Bengal, said he would make the Centre a party and file a written note to assist the court in deciding the plea.
He referred to instances of other states, including Tamil Nadu, and said the moment the top court fixed the cases for hearing, certain bills were either cleared or referred to the President.
Venugopal said there was a need for the top court to lay down guidelines on when the governors could return or refer the bills.
What does the Constitution say
The Constitution is silent on how much time President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.
Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or the governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
West Bengal, in its plea, said the denial of assent without assigning any reason to the bills passed by the assembly was contrary to Article 200 of the Constitution.
The article provides for the process for a bill passed by the assembly of a state to be presented to the governor for assent. The governor may either assent or withhold assent or reserve the bill for consideration by the president.
What does Article 200 say
When a bill has been passed by the legislative assembly of a state or, in the case of a state having a legislative council, has been passed by both Houses of the legislature of the state, it shall be presented to the governor and the governor shall declare either that he assents to the bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the bill for the consideration of the President.
What Supreme Court has said in the past
This is not the first time that faceoff between state government and governor has reached the doors of Supreme Court. The apex court has dealt with similar petitions from Tamil Nadu and Punjab governments and has made some very strong observations on the issue. "Our country has been running on established traditions and conventions and they need to be followed," the top court has said in its earlier judgments on the issue.
When Tamil Nadu governor R N Ravi had refused assent to bills, the Supreme Court, referring to Article 200 of the Constitution, said the governor cannot send the bills to the President after they were readopted by the legislative assembly upon getting them back from the office of the governor earlier.
The top court had also questioned the delay on the part of Ravi in granting assent to several Bills passed by the state assembly, asking why should governors wait for parties to move the top court with their grievances.
'Playing with fire'
In the case of Punjab, the Supreme Court had told the then governor Banwarilal Purohit "you are playing with fire." The top court expressed serious concern over the deadlock in Punjab and took a stern view of state governor not giving assent to bills passed by the state assembly.
(With inputs from agencies)
Source
#Delay #governor #assent #bills #takes #note #West #Bengal #Kerala #pleas #India #News #Times #India
[ad_1]The CPM-led Left Democratic Front government of Kerala had moved the top court in March alleging that certain bills cleared by legislative assembly were referred to President by the governor and these were still pending assent.
West Bengal, in its plea, has alleged that the state governor was withholding assent on eight bills. The state also claimed that West Bengal governor had referred some of the pending bills to President when he got to know that the matter was coming up for hearing in the top court.
The top court issued notices to Union ministry of home affairs and the secretaries of Kerala governor Arif Mohammad Khan and his West Bengal counterpart CV Ananda Bose and sought their replies within three weeks.
The bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also directed the Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government to make the home ministry a party to the petition.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, challenged the reference of bills to the President. Kerala said its plea pertained to the acts of the governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the president. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it said.
Kerala's counsel added these bills were pending with the governor for as long as about two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose".
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for West Bengal, said he would make the Centre a party and file a written note to assist the court in deciding the plea.
He referred to instances of other states, including Tamil Nadu, and said the moment the top court fixed the cases for hearing, certain bills were either cleared or referred to the President.
Venugopal said there was a need for the top court to lay down guidelines on when the governors could return or refer the bills.
What does the Constitution say
The Constitution is silent on how much time President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.
Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or the governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
West Bengal, in its plea, said the denial of assent without assigning any reason to the bills passed by the assembly was contrary to Article 200 of the Constitution.
The article provides for the process for a bill passed by the assembly of a state to be presented to the governor for assent. The governor may either assent or withhold assent or reserve the bill for consideration by the president.
What does Article 200 say
When a bill has been passed by the legislative assembly of a state or, in the case of a state having a legislative council, has been passed by both Houses of the legislature of the state, it shall be presented to the governor and the governor shall declare either that he assents to the bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the bill for the consideration of the President.
What Supreme Court has said in the past
This is not the first time that faceoff between state government and governor has reached the doors of Supreme Court. The apex court has dealt with similar petitions from Tamil Nadu and Punjab governments and has made some very strong observations on the issue. "Our country has been running on established traditions and conventions and they need to be followed," the top court has said in its earlier judgments on the issue.
When Tamil Nadu governor R N Ravi had refused assent to bills, the Supreme Court, referring to Article 200 of the Constitution, said the governor cannot send the bills to the President after they were readopted by the legislative assembly upon getting them back from the office of the governor earlier.
The top court had also questioned the delay on the part of Ravi in granting assent to several Bills passed by the state assembly, asking why should governors wait for parties to move the top court with their grievances.
'Playing with fire'
In the case of Punjab, the Supreme Court had told the then governor Banwarilal Purohit "you are playing with fire." The top court expressed serious concern over the deadlock in Punjab and took a stern view of state governor not giving assent to bills passed by the state assembly.
(With inputs from agencies)
COMMENTS