The West Bengal government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that a governor cannot sit in judgment over the legislative competence of a bill passed by a state assembly, asserting that such scrutiny lies within the domain of courts.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state, submitted before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai that the governor’s role in granting assent to bills is limited, and withholding assent on grounds of legislative competence would undermine the sovereignty of the legislature. The bench also comprised Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar.
Sibal argued that since Independence, there have been virtually no instances of the President withholding assent to a bill passed by Parliament, because such legislation reflects the “will of the people.” He maintained that “a legislation can be challenged in a court of law by citizens or others, but it is in the rarest case that a governor says he cannot give assent and withholds a bill.”
Chief Justice Gavai, however, asked whether a governor who finds a bill repugnant to central legislation could not reserve it for the President’s consideration. Justice Surya Kant observed that a governor cannot merely be a “postman” forwarding bills, nor can he act as a super-legislative body; he must apply his mind to questions of repugnancy, though the contours of such power are debatable.
Sibal stressed that delays in granting assent would disrupt constitutional harmony, contending: “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 a way that is workable. The court must ensure that there is no area of discord. The key phrase is ‘as soon as possible’—there is an element of immediacy, it is the will of the people.”
The hearing forms part of a Presidential reference under Article 143(1), in which President Droupadi Murmu has sought clarity on whether judicial orders can impose timelines for governors and the President in dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be declined even if the issues raised are political in nature. Earlier, the bench had expressed concern over governors indefinitely withholding assent, questioning whether such a practice would effectively allow even money bills to be blocked.
Several BJP-ruled states have defended the autonomy of governors and the President, arguing that assent to a law cannot be compelled by courts, while also cautioning that the judiciary should not become a “pill for every disease.”
