Supreme Court Questionsโ centerโ on Delayed Governor Action on State Bills
New Delhi: โthe Supreme Court sharplyโ questioned โขthe central โgovernment’s stance on the delays in governors acting on bills passed by state legislatures,asking how it could dismiss concerns raised by states as โ”false alarms” when bills remain โขpending with governors for years. โA five-judge bench,โค comprising Chief Justice of India BR โฃGavai, Justiceโฃ surya Kant, Justice โฃVikram nath, โJustice PS โNarasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar,โข is currently hearingโ a Presidential Reference โonโ 14 questions related to the โฃpowers of governors andโ the timelines for acting on state legislation.
The pointed inquiry came during โongoing โarguments concerning the constitutional validity of indefinite delays by governors in granting assent to bills. advocate Avani Bansal argued โthat the Constitution delineates four โขcategories of timelines for presidential/governor action, ranging from “reasonableness” toโค definite periods, and “as soon as may be” versus “as soon as possible,” โฃasserting theโข latter demands a higher degree of urgency. She urged the Courtโ to clarify the distinction.
The Presidential Reference arose โfrom concerns over governors withholding bills passed by state legislatures, prompting states like Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, โKarnataka, Kerala,โ andโข Punjab to argue against granting governors the โขpower to indefinitelyโข delay โassent. Senior Advocates Nirajan โฃReddy โ(for the State of Telangana), P โwilson, Gopal Shankarnarayan (for โtwo intervenors), Siddharth โฃLuthra โข(for the State ofโ Andhra Pradesh), and Advocates Amit Kumar (for the state of Meghalaya) haveโค also โฃpresented arguments. Previous days of hearings have seen Senior Advocate Kapil โคSibal argue โthat the Constitution should not be interpreted in โa way that renders governors unaccountable, and โฃdisagreements with Senior Advocate โAbhishek Singhvi’s argumentโฃ that governors have no discretion when acting on โฃbills.
