The Congress-ruled Telangana government on Wednesday said ordinarily the governor is bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers even while dealing with grant of prosecution sanction except for the instance where a minister or the chief minister is involved in a criminal case.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai was told by senior advocate Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the Telangana government, that the apex court while answering the Presidential reference will also have to look into the “inherent bias” on part of the governor by sitting over the bill.
Referring to the instance of Tamil Nadu, where the governor sat over the bill, passed by the assembly for removing the governor from being chancellor of state-run universities, Reddy on the ninth day of hearing on the Presidential reference said the court will have to look into it.
The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, was told by the senior advocate that second proviso under Article 200 is actually indication of fact that normally the Governor would not have any discretion and would be bound by aid and advice of council of ministers.
The top court is hearing a Presidential reference on whether the court could impose timelines for governors and the President to deal with bills passed by assemblies.
Article 200 governs powers of Governor regarding bills passed by the state legislature, allowing them to either assent to the bill, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration or reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.
The hearing is underway. Arguments of opposition ruled states, which are opposing the Presidential reference prompted by the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in the case of Tamil Nadu with regard to conflict of governor, are likely to conclude today.
Story continues below this ad
On Tuesday, the top court said governors were expected to act within “reasonable time” even if the term “as soon as possible” were not there in Article 200 that governs powers to assent to bills passed by the state legislature.
The first proviso of Article 200 says Governor may, as soon as possible, after the presentation to him of the bill for assent, return the bill, if it is not a money bill, to the house for reconsideration and shall not withhold the consent after the assembly reconsiders and sends it back to him.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Punjab government has contended that the framers of the Constitution put “as soon as possible” in Article 200 and there was no fetters for the court in setting the timeline of three months for grant of assent to bills.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Kerala had submitted that former state Governor Arif Mohammad Khan had followed a practice of sending bills to the ministries concerned for briefing him whenever he received them.
Story continues below this ad
The Congress-led Karnataka government, said under the constitutional scheme, the President and governors were only “titular heads”, bound to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, both at the Centre and in states.
The court is examining 14 questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu, including whether constitutional authorities can indefinitely withhold assent to bills and whether courts can impose mandatory time frames.
In May, President Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.