Prez reference hearing: Governor can't examine legislative competence of Bills, SC told

New Delhi: The West Bengal government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the governor cannot examine the legislative competence of a bill passed by the assembly.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai was told by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for West Bengal, that since Independence there is hardly any example where the President has withheld a bill passed by Parliament because it is the will of the people.

Advancing his argument before a bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, on the seventh day of hearing on the Presidential reference on whether the court could impose timelines for governors and President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies, Sibal submitted that legislative competence of a bill has to be tested in courts.

"A legislation can be challenged in a court of law by citizens or by somebody else. It's in the rarest and rare case that a Governor says I cannot give assent to the bills and withhold it," he submitted.

He added that Parliament is sovereign and there is an element of urgency that the will of the people has to be implemented urgently.

CJI Gavai questioned Sibal whether the governor, on finding that the bills suffers from repugnancy in view of central legislation, not reserve the bill for consideration of the President.

Sibal submitted that it is a rare case but when a bill is passed by the legislature, there is a presumption of constitutionality, which has to be tested in the court.

Justice Kant told Sibal that then governor will have to apply his mind to see whether the bill is repugnant or not, although one can advance arguments on the contours but he can’t simply be a postman or a super legislative body.

Sibal submitted, "Sovereignty of the state legislature is as important as sovereignty of Parliament.Should the governor be allowed to delay this. This is an important question…You cannot create a discord…otherwise it will a break down. The Constitution has to be interpreted in such a way that it is workable. This court has to ensure that there is no area of discord.