NEW DELHI: On the second day of the hearing in the Presidential reference case on Wednesday, the Supreme Court observed that in case a governor has the power to permanently withhold assent to the Bills passed by the State legislature, the situation might arise that would leave the elected State government at the whims and fancies of an unelected governor.
“Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over appeals. The government elected with the majority will be at the whims and fancies of governor,” observed Chief Justice B R Gavai, leading the five-judge Constitution bench.
The top court passed the remark after the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution can withhold assent to a Bill, making it “fall through” with no option to send it back to the legislature.
The Court opined that the governor will then have ample powers to sit over Bills and withhold them for time immemorial. Mehta, however, replied that everyone derives power from the Constitution.
The Union government argued in favour of discretionary powers assigned to the governor and said setting timelines for considering Bills could lead to a reduction in the constitutional power of the post.
“The governor is not a postman. He represents the Union of India (Centre). He is appointed by the president, who is, in turn, elected by the nation by way of an indirect election. The governor’s office will be reduced to a postman if he cannot use his discretion to withhold Bills,” said the SG.
Citing constitutional debates and the draft Constitution, Mehta submitted that the governor, under the substantive part of Article 200, can simply ‘withhold assent’ to a Bill, if he believes that the Bill is unconstitutional and beyond any remedial changes. The arguments in the case would continue on Thursday.
On April 8, the top court, while hearing the case of Tamil Nadu vs Governor R N Ravi, held that the governor must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a Bill, and within one month when a Bill is re-enacted.
Also in top court
‘Accused can’t rot in jail without fair trial’
An accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday in a UAPA case. The bench, directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within two years considering there were over 100 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution.
‘Now out of wedlock, egos should vanish’
The Court on Wednesday dissolved a couple’s marriage and asked them to look after their minor child, noting their egos should “vanish” now the wedlock was over. The bench, noting it disliked granting divorces, told the couple, “There is ego in marriage. Once there is no marriage, the ego should vanish. Now look after the child.”