NEW DELHI: Partly differing with another opposition-governed state Tamil Nadu and somewhat concurring with the Centre’s stand on the Presidential Reference in the Supreme Court, West Bengal on Tuesday said the Constitution conferred some amount of discretionary powers on governors in dealing with bills presented to him after being passed by state legislatures.When senior advocate Kapil Sibal was prefacing arguments on behalf of West Bengal after conclusion of senior advocate A M Singhvi’s pithy opposition to Presidential Reference, a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar asked a pointed question – “Do governors have discretion in exercise of options provided under Article 200 of the Constitution in relations to bills? How does he decide to take recourse to one of the four options?”The question assumed importance as opposition governed states – TN, WB, Karnataka, Kerala, Telangana and Punjab – have joined ranks to oppose the Presidential Reference. Singhvi had vehemently argued that a governor, being merely ornamental head of executive in a state with no legislative function, is always bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers led by the CM, even in exercise of options – granting assent to a bill, withholding it, returning bill for reconsideration by the legislature or reserving it for President’s consideration.For TN, Singhvi elaborated upon his argument by listing possible scenarios: If the council of ministers feel that it is not the appropriate time to make a bill a law given the situation in the state, then it can advise a governor to withhold assent for sometime; if it felt that a Bill was passed hurriedly and required some changes, then it would advise him to return it to legislature for carrying out the changes; and if it felt that the law may be repugnant to central law, it can advise a governor to reserve it for President’s consideration. Sibal, appearing for West Bengal, disagreed and said a governor certainly has some discretion under Article 200. “A governor, while exercising the options of returning a bill to legislature, or reserving a bill for President’s consideration, is not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers and takes a decision on his discretion,” he said.He said, “Governor is certainly not a postman (to do whatever is told to him by the council of ministers). Otherwise why have a governor at all? But this does not mean a governor would act against the will of the people reflected in a bill passed by the legislature. Our Constitutional scheme mandates a collaborative effort between the executive and the legislature. The governor cannot take a combative position to have confrontation with the council of ministers or the legislature to subvert governance.”Senior advocate Sibal said governors cannot be permitted to withhold assent indefinitely to negate the will of the people and his actions in this regard would always be subject to judicial review. “Any absolute power conferred on a governor would create a constitutional conundrum. The concept of withholding assent is always temporary.” Sibal will continue his submissions Wednesday.The President sent a Reference to SC seeking its opinion on 14 questions, mainly on SC’s power to grant deemed assent and fix timelines for President and governors, after a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on Apr 8 granted deemed assent to 10 bills pending with the TN governor and fixed timelines for the constitutional heads of executive at the Centre and states for taking decision on bills passed by the legislature.
