.jfif?w=273&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&format=webp&dpr=1.0)
The Supreme Court on Friday sent notices to the Centre and the secretaries to the governors of Kerala and West Bengal based on separate pleas from the states over delay in assent to bills and their passing to President Droupadi Murmu for clearance.
The top court bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and secretaries of Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan and his West Bengal counterpart CV Ananda Bose, seeking their response within three weeks.
The SC bench also directed the Mamata Banerjee-led TMC government in West Bengal to make the Home Ministry a party to the petition.
The Left government in Kerala, led by the CPI(M), had moved the apex court earlier in March, alleging that certain bills cleared by the state Legislative Assembly were referred to President Murmu for clearance by the governor and still pending assent.
Meanwhile, West Bengal alleged that the governor was withholding assent on as many as eight bills. This is the latest development in the state vs governors tussle that has been going on for quite a while in the opposition-ruled states.
WHO SAID WHAT?
Appearing for the Kerala government, senior Advocate KK Venugopal said, "This is the most unfortunate situation."
"We are issuing notices to the secretary to the governors and the Union in both cases," the top court bench said.
Venugopal also mentioned that the bills had been pending assent for the last eight months. "I am challenging the reference to the president itself... This is a confusion among the governors. They keep the bills pending. This is against the Constitution."
Meanwhile, senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi -- appearing for West Bengal -- told the court that he would make the Centre a party and file a written note to assist the court in deciding the plea.
Singhvi, citing the example of other states like Tamil Nadu, said that the moment the SC fixed the hearing of the cases, some bills were either cleared or referred to the President.
Venugopal insisted that there was a need for the apex court to lay down guidelines as to when the governors could return or refer the bills.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, also for West Bengal, informed the top court bench that on Friday morning when the other party was made aware about the hearing, some bills were referred by the Governor to the President for clearance.
"Although there is no official communication, we have come to know about the development," he added.
DELAY 'SUBVERTS' FUNCTIONING OF STATE LEGISLATURE
Kerala also alleged that the governor reserved as many as seven bills to the president, which in fact, he was supposed to deal with by himself. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with the Centre-state relations, the southern state's plea added.
The governor delaying the bills for as long as about two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose".
"The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said.
On February 23 and 29, the Kerala government had said that the Home Ministry had informed it that the President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills. These bills were, University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.
It said that the Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in assenting to a bill which has been passed by the state Legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent, news agency PTI reported.
Article 361 of the Indian Constitution has said that 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.
In its plea, West Bengal said that the denial of assent without any reason to the bills passed by the State Assembly was contradictory to Article 200 of the Constitution.
The article spells 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.
"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," states Article 200.
The bills which are pending assent from the Bengal governor are; West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Bill, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences (Amendment) Bill, West Bengal Private University Laws (Amendment) Bill, West Bengal Krishi Viswavidyalaya Laws, West Bengal University of Health Sciences (Amendment) Bill and the Aliah University (Amendment) Bill.
All of these bills were passed by the Bengal Assembly in 2022 except for the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill, which was passed in 2023.
