New Delhi: Three Opposition-ruled states argued against discretionary powers of Governors in withholding Bills and said it is the role of legislature to make laws and Governors have no rule in it.

A five-judge Constitution bench on Wednesday continued its hearing on the Presidential Reference which asked whether courts could impose timelines for Governors and the President to deal with Bills passed by State assemblies.

Kapil Sibal, for West Bengal, argued that a Bill sent to the Governor has to be assented, and the Centre has power to nullify a state law, or it may be challenged in courts, but the will of the people must be respected.

It was pointed to the court that the Governor is not a “super Chief Minister” empowered to withhold even a money Bill, but only a titular head in the administration of the state. Former Union Minister Anand Sharma, who made a comeback as a lawyer representing Himachal Pradesh, argued the President or Governors don’t even summon Parliament or Legislative Assemblies. The process is kick-started by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister. Gopal Subramanium, for Karnataka, quoting a previous Supreme Court judgment, said there cannot be a dyarchy (Governor and state government) in a state. Gopal Subramanium will continue his arguments on September 9.

He argues it is a carry-on of the formal expression of executive action by the President or Governor under Articles 77 and 166 of the Constitution.

But for President or Governor to intervene in legislative action would need specific permission in the text of the Constitution, he says.

Governor’s office cannot be used to nullify the will of the people, said Anand Sharma, adding that Centre-State relations are well-marked, defined and separated. Federalism is India’s strength, part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Any attempt to redefine or revisit would disturb the Centre and State relations, he said.