NEW DELHI: On 7th day of hearing in the Presidential reference case on Wednesday, governments of several states, including Karnataka, West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh, claimed before the Supreme Court that the Union government sought to “abrogate the fulcrum of the Constitution” by questioning the Court’s April 8 ruling that prescribed timelines for the President and the Governor to decide on Bills passed by the state legislatures.
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Karnataka, argued that the Union government tried to indirectly abrogate the fulcrum of the Constitution,which is the cabinet form of government and the responsibility of the legislature.
He clarified that the democratic form of government through the Cabinet has been held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, contended that the Court should not fall into a trap where the governor becomes an impediment to the functioning of the Constitution.
“The Constitution is a living document. It owes its genesis to history, but owes its allegiance to the future, and you [judges] are the future because you interpret it. Let us not fall into a trap where the governor becomes an impediment to the functioning of the Constitution. Therefore, you will have to say something.... Don’t give a timeline, but you still have to say that there is no way he can withhold if it is passed again,” he argued.
The submissions were made before the Constitution Bench of the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar.
Sibal, seeking dismissal of the Presidential reference, told the apex court that the governor cannot examine the legislative competence of a bill passed by the assembly. “Since Independence, there is hardly any example where the President has withheld a bill passed by Parliament because it is the will of the people. The legislative competence of a bill has to be tested in courts,” he added.
Sibal argued that the governor cannot look into the constitutionality of a bill. The bench then asked whether the governor can withhold assent if the bill is repugnant in view of the central legislation. Sibal said that would be a rarest of rare case. Legislation can be challenged in a court of law by citizens or by someone else. It’s in the rarest and rare case that a governor says I cannot pass,” Sibal said.
Also in top court
‘Policy for convicted foreigners needed’
After it learnt that a foreign national accused in a cheating case jumped bail and is on the run, the SC has underlined the need for a policy to ensure foreign nationals committing crimes in the country don’t “flee from justice”. The SC had on December 4 last year set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s May 2022 order granting bail to accused Alex David.
Early bail tendency unacceptable: SC
The SC on Wednesday slammed Leena Paulose, wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, seeking expeditious hearing of her bail plea before the Delhi High Court in a `200 crore extortion case. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra said the tendency of approaching SC for seeking early hearing of cases is not acceptable.