Guv withholding consent to bills violates Art 200: Counsel
Times of India | 13 July 2024
12 Kolkata: Sanjay Basu, Bengal’s senior standing counsel in Supreme Court, said in a statement that the governor withholding consent to the bills was violative of Article 200 of the Constitution and had “precipitated a constitutional crisis” in the state. The statement added that the governor had neither acted on the bills or given any reason for keeping them pending.
The deadlock over VC appointments had on July 8 prompted the SC to invoke its extraordinary power granted under Article 142 of the Constitution to set up a search-and-selection committee headed by former CJI U U Lalit to recommend a panel of names to CM Mamata Banerjee. The SC also made it clear that the CM will forward to the governor the list of names “in order of preference” and the governor will appoint the VCs “in the same order of preference” as recommended by the CM. Disputes and objections raised by either the CM or the governor can be argued before the SC.
In its SLP before the SC, the Bengal govt argued that under Article 200, the governor can either give his assent to a bill, withhold assent or send it to the President. He or she can send it back to the assembly for reconsideration but once the bill is passed again in the assembly and sent back to Raj Bhavan, the governor cannot withhold assent.
The state argues that though the time frame specified in Article 200 is “as soon as possible”, it has to be within a reasonable time and cannot be indefinitely paused. “The governor must, therefore, not be allowed to exercise a pocket veto through the back door on matters where he has been vested with no discretion.... It is a well-settled principle of law that the governor has no role in the realm of legislative activity, including in the consideration of bills, except to the extent contemplated under Article 200 of the Constitution of India,” the petition says.