The West Bengal government on Wednesday argued before the Supreme Court that a governor has no authority to question the legislative competence of a bill passed by the state assembly.
According to the state, such scrutiny lies exclusively with the courts, not the Raj Bhavan.
The submission came during the ongoing hearings on a Presidential reference that seeks clarity on whether constitutional timelines can be fixed for governors and the President in dealing with bills passed by state legislatures.
Kapil Sibal: “Will of the People Can’t Be Delayed”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, told a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai that since Independence, there are hardly any instances of the President withholding assent to a parliamentary bill. “A legislation can be challenged in a court of law by citizens or by somebody else. It’s in the rarest and rare case that a Governor says I cannot give assent to the bills and withhold it,” he argued.
Sibal emphasised that both Parliament and state assemblies embody the will of the people, which must be respected with urgency. “Sovereignty of the state legislature is as important as sovereignty of Parliament. Should the governor be allowed to delay this? The Constitution has to be interpreted in such a way that it is workable,” he submitted.
Bench Questions On Repugnancy
During the hearing, Chief Justice Gavai asked whether a governor could still be required to act if a bill appeared to conflict with a central law. “On finding that the bill suffers from repugnancy in view of central legislation, can the governor not reserve the bill for consideration of the President?” he asked.
Justice Surya Kant added that a governor can’t simply act as a “postman” forwarding bills without thought, nor as a “super legislature” overriding elected bodies. He said the governor is still expected to apply his mind to questions of repugnancy, though the contours of that power remain open to debate.
Sibal responded that even in such cases, there is a presumption of constitutionality once a bill is passed. Any doubts about repugnancy, he said, must ultimately be resolved by the courts.
Court’s Broader Concerns
The bench is hearing the reference against the backdrop of increasing friction between some state governments and governors. On August 26, the court had expressed concern over indefinite delays in assent, asking whether constitutional functionaries could block even money bills, thereby paralysing governance.
A day prior, the bench reaffirmed that judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and that courts cannot avoid constitutional questions simply because they touch political issues. However, it underlined that its role in the present matter is limited to interpreting the Constitution, not rewriting it.
Several BJP-governed states have urged the court not to interfere, insisting that assent is an executive function that can’t be subjected to judicial timelines. They contended that courts cannot be a “pill for every disease” in governance disputes.
Presidential Reference Under Article 143
In May 2024, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether it can direct timelines for governors and the President in assenting to state bills. The ongoing hearings before the Constitution bench are aimed at settling this critical constitutional question.
The matter will continue to be heard in the coming days.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
