The Supreme Court expressed it's concern over the action of Governors in States where they delay their assent to the bills passed by the State Assembly. Related petitions moved separately by Tamil Nadu and Kerala Government has questioned the respective Governors for their stance.

The Bench of Judges at SC also said that once a bill is sent back to the Governor following a re-adoption by the Assembly, it acquires the status of a money bill that the Governor must give assent to.

Questions have been raised that why the Governor can't deliver their constitutional functions effectively unless the affected parties start approaching the Courts.

Some bills have been pending for a period of more than 26 months.

Returning of bills by TN Governor Ravi led the Court to express serious concern over the Governor's action on bills.

Following a special session, the Assembly re-passed the 10 bills and sent them to the Governor again for the latter's assent. And this issue is not, particularly with a specific Governor.

The issue is not that a particular Governor is delaying the functions but it's somewhere a breach of Parliamentary Democracy.

His actions are contrary to the mandate of Article 200 which prescribed that the Governor may as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the bill for assent, return the bill together with a message requesting the House may reconsider it.

Governor specified that they did withhold their assent because the passed bills sought to deprive the Governor of the power to appoint vice-chancellors in State Universities.

In the last few months, Punjab, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala have approached SC seeking directives for their respective Governors.

The top court underlined that “In a parliamentary form of democracy, real power vests in the elected representatives of the people” while the governor, as an appointee of the President, is just a “titular head” of the state. But it also criticised the state government, saying its actions of keeping the assembly in suspended animation indefinitely amounted to defeating the Constitution.

“If democracy has to work, it has to work in the hands of a chief minister as well as in the hands of governors,” the court commented.

The State Government has argued that the assent of the Governor is actually in a way working to bring the administrative system to a major halt.

.    .    .

Reference:

• hindustantimes.com