HYDERABAD: The Telangana government has argued in the Supreme Court that withholding of bills by the President and Governors after they have been passed by the elected state Legislatures amounts to subverting the will of the Legislatures and is in excess of the role of Governors as figureheads in the constitutional scheme with very few areas of discretionary action.
This argument was submitted recently in written form through Advocate-on-Record Devina Sehgal before the Constitution bench which is hearing arguments in view of the Presidential reference “Assent, Withholding or Reservation of bills by the Governor and the President of India”.
The written arguments, accessed by the TNIE, state: “It is essential that timelines are read into the provisions of Articles 200 and 201 to ensure that a pocket veto is not exercised by the Governor and the President, in preventing bills passed by the Legislature from being enacted into law. Despite being a high constitutional functionary, the specification of timelines and judicial review is essential to prevent inaction by the Governor or President being used to undermine the functioning of the state Legislature.”
The state government, in its arguments, added: “Being the formal head of the state machinery, the Governor does not possess discretionary power to suspend the functioning of organs of the state by suspending the enactment of bills but must act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the chief minister.”
Further, the state government said that the judgment in “The State of Tamil Nadu” case safeguards the mandate of state Legislatures under Article 246(3) of the Constitution and the Presidential reference has made out no grounds for reconsideration of the same. The timelines specified in this case for the Governor and the President are in line with Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution and preserve the powers of state Legislatures.
In its arguments, the state government mentioned that in “The State of Punjab” case, the Supreme Court had noted that the Governor cannot withhold action on bills and must act “as soon as possible”.
It also stated that in “State of Telangana v Secretary to Her Excellency the Governor for the State of Telangana”, the Supreme Court noted that the expression “as soon as possible” in the first proviso to Article 200 has constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities.
The Telangana government argued: “The use of the expression ‘as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent’ indicates that the returning of the bill to the Legislature is intended to be done with utmost expedition with no possibility for delay. This is in line with the prescription that “if the bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and is presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom”, clearly establishing the primacy of the state Legislature in respect of the bill being enacted into law.”
Article 201 ensures expeditious decisions on bills: TG in SC
The state government said: “Withholding assent under Article 200 thus has to be read in line with the stipulation that the bill be returned to the House or Houses for reconsideration in the first proviso and cannot be an independent course of action available to the Governor. Similarly, Article 201 envisages the President declaring that he or she either assents to the Bill or withholds assent, which implies that a decision in this behalf is taken expeditiously.”
Making it clear that the Presidential Reference is not maintainable on account of seeking reconsideration of the settled law on the subject and is thus beyond the scope of Article 143(1), Telangana government proposed that the propositions set out in the State of Tamil Nadu and State of Punjab by the Supreme Court not be disturbed.