Not justifying Guv's sitting over bills indefinitely but barring few most acted as desired: Centre

New Delhi, Sep 10 (PTI) The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that it was not justifying governors indefinitely sitting on bills passed by state legislature but barring a few exceptions most had acted in a way which the apex court would have perhaps desired.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further submitted before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai that Governor was "not a rubber stamp".

According to Mehta, who was representing the Centre, the argument that Governor had no power to withhold a bill in any circumstances whatsoever besides having no discretion under Article 200 of the Constitution, would defy the oath he takes to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

"Governors barring few aberrations have acted in a way the Supreme Court would have desired them to act," he said, contesting arguments of those opposing the presidential reference being heard by the top court.

"I am not justifying the act of governors keeping the bills pending for indefinite period but there cannot be a straight jacket formula," Mehta argued before the bench, which also comprised Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar.

The law officer countered the arguments of opposition-ruled Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh opposing the reference, saying if their contention was accepted then it would turn Governor's office, who represents President of India, into a "mute spectator" without any "participative, collaborative or even limited advisory role" in the entire process.

He said accepting their argument would make the power/function of assent on bills, a mere formality and render the options and the choices, a vestige of the council of ministers, who would always exercise only one option – assent.

Referring to the oath taken by Governor under Article 159, Mehta said, "The oath of not only preserving and protecting the Constitution but also defending the Constitution is taken only by the President of India and the governors. If Governor's role is restricted as argued by the parties opposing the reference, he will not be able to do anything even if some action on his part is required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Even if a bill was not just repugnant to any central law but downright unconstitutional, Governor would be deprived of her duty to withhold assent, he added.

"The said reading is contrary to the genesis of the Constitution and, more importantly, sets a dangerous precedent for the future," Mehta said.

His argument was pointed to Kerala's counsel, senior advocate K K Venugopal's submission that governors should hold consultation when dealing with assent to bills.

Mehta ruled out any "straightjacket formula" in a democratic and federal setup of the country.

"This consultative and collaborative approach has been in existence for the past 75 years. Where chief ministers of states come and meet the Prime Minister and the President to resolve the impasse over bills. Not every matter has reached the Supreme Court for the past 75 years. This is a new trend, where states are directly rushing to the Supreme Court," he said.

The Constitution expects Governor, Mehta argued, to play a pivotal role in the functioning of the state government.

He said neither was Governor a "super chief minister" nor expected to be one -- as contended by some parties.

The law officer said Governor's office was conceived as a "high constitutional trust" and not as an "appendage" to day-to-day politics.

"The office of the Governor is crucial in maintaining institutional balance and managing political contestation with statesmanship, restraint, and reasoned engagement, ensuring constitutional governance in practice, and not merely in theory," he added.

Mehta also contested the arguments of senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Punjab government, on the comparison between President and the British Crown.

"There cannot be any comparison between the British Crown and the President of India. The submission on behalf of the state of Punjab frequently compared the King/Queen, i.e., the British Crown, with the President of India. The Constitution of India has merely borrowed the parliamentary form of government while suitably altering the structure of the Constitution to suit the Indian context. Whatever may be true for Britain need not be true in the Indian context," he said.

Mehta said the British Crown was a hereditary, unlike President of India, who is elected by an indirect election, but by the elected representatives of the entire country.

He said the court should not interpret the Constitution in such a way that it amends it.

In May, President Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. PTI MNL SJK MNL AMK AMK