Home › National
› SC Questions Governors’ Delay in Assenting to Bills: Says ‘As Soon As Possible’ Must Have Practical Meaning
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-->
Kalimpong News is an online news portal and an unit of Kalimpong Press Club. Disclaimer Note: The views in the articles published here are absolutely the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or perspective of Kalimpong News and the Kalimpong News and KalimNews does not stand liable for them and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or validity of the content.
A five-judge Constitution bench made the observation even as the Centre submitted that state governments cannot invoke writ jurisdiction in moving the apex court against the actions of the President and the Governor in dealing with the Bills passed by state Assemblies for violation of fundamental rights.
The apex court also said the framers of the Constitution deliberately replaced an earlier six-week limit with the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 and asked the Centre whether this phrase can be ignored in deciding the fate of Bills.
Article 200 provides for the powers of the Governor regarding Bills passed by the State Legislature, allowing them to either assent to the Bill, withhold assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
A proviso of Article 200 says the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill, if it is not a Money Bill, to the House for reconsideration, and shall not withhold the consent after the Assembly reconsiders and sends it back to him.
"The question is when the Governor sits over a Bill passed by the Legislature and keeps sitting over it. The words used were 'as soon as possible'… earlier it was six weeks and later made 'as soon as possible' and one of the members in the drafting committee stated 'as soon as possible' would mean immediately… if this was the view of the Constitution makers, then can we ignore that?" Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai asked.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, said the argument that Governors can withhold assent even to Money Bills passed by the Assembly would effectively make them a "super Chief Minister" of a state.
Withholding of a Bill must lead to returning it to the Assembly, and if the Governors are allowed to withhold their assent permanently, then it will make a mockery of the whole Article 200 and it will be swallowed by this proviso, he said.
"Otherwise, the word 'as soon as possible' will be rendered otiose (serving no practical purpose) if you withhold (assent) for eternity," the CJI said.
0 Response to "SC Questions Governors’ Delay in Assenting to Bills: Says ‘As Soon As Possible’ Must Have Practical Meaning"
Post a Comment
Disclaimer Note:
The views expressed in the articles published here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or perspective of Kalimpong News or KalimNews. Kalimpong News and KalimNews disclaim all liability for the published or posted articles, news, and information and assume no responsibility for the accuracy or validity of the content.
Kalimpong News is a non-profit online news platform managed by KalimNews and operated under the Kalimpong Press Club.
Comment Policy:
We encourage respectful and constructive discussions. Please ensure decency while commenting and register with your email ID to participate.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.