Governors must act ‘forthwith’ on Bills, States argue in SC , Pg1

Key Highlights:

• Non-BJP ruled states argued in the Supreme Court that Governors should assent to State Bills "forthwith".
• West Bengal, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh asserted that Governors should not stall Bills reflecting the will of the people.
• Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, argued that Article 200 requires Governors to return Bills "as soon as possible".
• States contended that Governors' delaying assent creates conflict and undermines the legislative powers of State legislatures.

Detailed Insights:

• States argued that even the three-month deadline suggested in the Tamil Nadu Governor case is too long for Governors to act on Bills.
• The States criticized the practice of Governors "sitting over Bills" as a disguised form of denying assent without returning them to the legislature.
• Article 167 was highlighted, emphasizing the Chief Minister's duty to inform the Governor of contemplated laws as part of the pre-legislative process.
• States argued that the power given to Governors under Article 200 is not a discretionary choice but a constitutional route, and Governors should not question the constitutionality of Bills.
• The proviso of Article 254(2), allowing Parliament to neutralize repugnant State laws, was mentioned as a "second filter" on State Bills.
• It was argued that the concept of aid and advice of the Cabinet is central in a parliamentary democracy, and Governors must act accordingly.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 200: Deals with the Governor's role in assenting to Bills passed by the State Legislature.
• Article 167: Specifies the duties of the Chief Minister to communicate with the Governor.
• Article 254(2): Concerns the power of Parliament to legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, overriding State laws.