A mockery of the Constitution is the way certain governors have been handling legislation that has been passed by state legislatures. It was thought that Raj Bhavan incumbents would stop their purposeful silence on bills passed by the Assemblies after the Supreme Court of India intervened in the Punjab case and raised concerns about the actions or inaction of the governors of Tamil Nadu and Telangana. However, it seems that Governors have resorted to the tactic of bringing Bills they disagree with to the President for consideration after realizing that their ostensible discretion to sit on the Bills indefinitely or withhold assent to them has been significantly constrained.
The State legislatures have no other options when the President declines to accede to the Union government’s advice. This has raised the question of whether federalism is being undermined by the misuse of the clause reserving certain bills for the President’s approval. Put otherwise, the Constitution does not call for the Center to have an artificial veto on State laws. Kerala has specifically posed this query in its writ case to the Court, contesting the Governor’s action of forwarding the Bills to the President and the latter’s denial of assent. The Court should rule on the matter and impose restrictions on the Governors’ ability to employ the option at this time.
Notably, the Court in Telangana observed that Governors were expected to act on Bills “as soon as possible”, underscoring that the phrase had significant constitutional content and that constitutional functionaries would have to bear this in mind. It is surprising that the Governors of West Bengal and Kerala have not learned anything from these judgments and observations. In the Punjab case, the Court ruled that Governors do not have a veto over Bills and that whenever they withheld assent, they were bound to return the Bills to Assembly. If the Assembly adopted the Bills, with or without amendments, they were bound to grant assent.
Rashtrapati Bhavan received seven bills from Kerala that might not typically need the president’s approval; four of them were denied without a given explanation. There has been no activity on these bills for 23 to 10 months. A few bills that may have been sent to the President have been contested by West Bengal as well. The issue is bigger than the political factors that influenced the governor’s decision to act or not act. Fundamentally, it is about whether the Constitution allows for this kind of indirect federal interference in State legislative affairs.
ABHISHEK VERMA
Author: This news is edited by: Abhishek Verma, (Editor, CANON TIMES)
Authentic news.
