Governors Cannot Stall Bills, Must Give Assent Immediately, Oppn States Argue Before SC

Warn of Governors Becoming 'Impediment' in Constitutional Functioning

- MPOST BUREAU

NEW DELHI: Opposition-ruled States on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by elected legislatures, contending that even the three-month limit prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case was excessive. They argued that once a legislature expresses the "will of the people" through a Bill, governors—described as "titular heads"—must assent to it without delay.

The matter came up before a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, which is examining a Presidential reference under Article 143. President Droupadi Murmu had sought clarity on aspects of the court's April 11 judgment that directed Governors and the President to decide on Bills within a "reasonable time," fixing three months as an outer limit.

West Bengal, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium and Anand Sharma respectively, submitted that constitutional provisions do not permit Governors to stall Bills indefinitely.

Kapil Sibal, appearing for West Bengal, said Article 200 requires the Governor to act "as soon as possible" if he chooses to return a Bill. "The expression must mean forthwith. Bills cannot be left in cold storage. Once the legislature has spoken, the Governor cannot play gatekeeper," he said.

Sibal stressed that Governors had no authority to test the constitutionality of State laws. "If a Bill is repassed by the legislature, the Governor is duty-bound to grant assent. Questions of constitutionality are for courts to examine, not Governors," he submitted.

He referred to Article 167, which obliges Chief Ministers to keep Governors informed of legislative proposals. "Discussions take place even before a Bill is introduced. The Governor's role is advisory, not adversarial," he argued.