Following its recent decision to examine the constitutional immunity of governors from criminal prosecution, the Supreme Court on Friday announced it will also scrutinize the guidelines for governors in withholding assent to legislative bills or referring them to the President.
Kerala and West Bengal have joined Telangana and Tamil Nadu in accusing governors of arbitrarily exercising their powers regarding bills.
Senior advocates, K K Venugopal, A M Singhvi, and Jaideep Gupta, representing Kerala and West Bengal, argued that governors are increasingly delaying assent to bills passed by legislative assemblies and reserving them for the President’s consideration without valid reasons.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the governors’ secretaries to comprehensively interpret the constitutional provisions related to governors’ powers concerning bills.
The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutional immunity granted to governors under Article 361, following allegations of sexual harassment against West Bengal Governor C V Ananda Bose, where the police were accused of not investigating due to the immunity.
Venugopal highlighted the confusion among governors regarding their powers, citing examples from Kerala where several bills have been pending for extended periods. For West Bengal, Gupta noted that the governor’s office reserved some bills for the President’s consideration after the state filed a petition before the Supreme Court.
Singhvi, representing both Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, pointed out that governors often act only when petitions are filed in the Supreme Court, clearing some bills and sending others to the President. Venugopal added that referring bills to the President seems to be a way for governors to avoid cooperating with the legislative assembly.
In a recent judgment involving the AAP government and the Punjab governor, the Supreme Court stated that granting unrestrained power to governors to withhold assent to bills would undermine the legislative domain of elected legislatures, which contradicts the principles of constitutional democracy based on a parliamentary system of governance. The court emphasized that governors cannot indefinitely withhold bills without action.
