The Kerala government on Tuesday argued before the Supreme Court that the Council of Ministers of a State can compel the Governor of the State to grant assent to a bill if he chooses to withhold it despite discussions.
The submission was made before the Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar which was hearing the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu to the top court under Article 143 of the Constitution seeking clarifications with respect to the Court's April ruling which had set deadlines of Governors to act on bills passed State legislatures.
Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, said that when there is no agreement even after discussions between the government and the Governor and the latter intends to withhold assent to a bill, the Council of Ministers can immediately advise him under Article 163 to grant assent.
"In which case, the Governor would have no choice but to grant assent under Article 163. In my view, it may not be appropriate for council of ministers to utilize Article 163 the moment the bills are passed and compel the Governor to immediately grant assent in all cases, even without discussion. To compel the Governor... is not consistent with the high position held by Governor as head of the State," he added.
Therefore, there is no question of withholding assent in any circumstances, Venugopal further said. However, if the Governor still choses to withhold assent, Venugopal said,"If the Bill is killed, reasons have to be given. Reasons will make it open for judicial review. Governor is not there to subvert the functioning of the legislatures. On the other hand, he is very much part of the legislature. He will ensure that bills are assented to in the interest of State. He has no power to withhold assent. After discussing bills with ministers, Article 163 will be used to ask the Governor to grant assent."
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the State of Karnataka, also echoed the same and said the Governor has no veto over bills passed by the State legislature.
The Presidential reference has questioned the April 11 judgment passed by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. In that verdict, the apex court held that Governors must act within a reasonable time and that constitutional silence could not be used to stall the democratic process.The Court held that although Article 200 does not specify any time limit, it cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite delay by the Governor in acting on bills passed by the State legislature.
With regard to the President’s powers under Article 201, the Court held that her decision-making is not beyond judicial scrutiny and must occur within three months. If there is any delay beyond that period, reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned State, it had said.
Follow us
