NEW DELHI: Opposition-governed states of Karnataka, Punjab, Kerala and Telangana Tuesday told Supreme Court that Constitution confers no discretion on President and governors to stall a bill passed by legislature even on the ground it is unconstitutional or repugnant to a central law.Advocating the supremacy of the cabinet system of governance at the Centre and states, Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Karnataka, told a CJI-led five-judge bench that bills passed are an expression of people’s will, and hence, the President or governors at best could return such bills once to the legislatures with suggestions. “Giving sweeping discretionary powers to a governor will result in a dyarchy,” Subramanium said. Any conferment of veto power to a governor is antithetical to the existence of the elected state legislature,” Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Karnataka, said, adding he is always, like the President, bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers.He, however, conceded that a governor can act without the aid and advice of the council of ministers in matters related to grant of sanction for prosecution of ministers under the Prevention of Corruption Act; while acting as chancellor of universities (an argument which would not go well with West Bengal which is at loggerheads with the governor on appointment of vice-chancellors); and as head of religious boards. The power to withhold assent is concomitant to returning it to the legislature for reconsideration, and if the legislature passes the bill again, with or without amendments, the governor has no option but to grant assent, he said.
Subramanium said timelines for governors and the President for taking decision on bills is a necessity in the present political situation and argued that SC by providing timelines in the Tamil Nadu case in its April 8 judgment has only facilitated the aggrieved states to approach the court in the event of them not taking a decision on bills within specified time.The bench, also comprising and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, appreciated Subramanium’s sincerity in the court hearing and the courtesy he extended to the counsel opposed to him, and told him to keep assisting courts in the future. For Punjab, senior advocate Arvind Datar argued that a state legislature is entitled to enact a law that may be perceived as unconstitutional, especially in providing reservation in jobs to certain communities which would take the total quota beyond the 50% cap, but the governor or President have no option but to assent to it.“Governor has no power to determine the constitutional validity of a bill, which is the task of constitutional courts. Discretionary power does not mean a governor can keep reserving bills for President’s consideration. Moreover, the President, bound by the aid and advice of the Union council of ministers, cannot frustrate the will of the people of the state by sitting over a bill referred to her by the governor,” he said. Attempts by senior advocate P Wilson to argue for DMK were scotched by the CJI-headed bench, which said that Tamil Nadu has already argued in detail against the Presidential Reference and that giving a chance to a political party to argue would be an invite to other political parties to intervene. The arguments would continue on Wednesday.
