Presidential reference: Prez, governors bound by advice of council of ministers, Punjab, Karnataka & Kerala tell SC

Describing the President and governors as "titular heads", the opposition-ruled states of Karnataka, Kerala and Punjab on Tuesday asserted before the Supreme Court that they were bound to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers under the constitutional scheme.

On the eighth day of the hearing on the Presidential Reference on timelines for assent to state bills, senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, KK Venugopal and Arvind P Datar -- representing the governments of Karnataka, Kerala and Punjab respectively – submitted before a five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI BR Gavai that Article 200 did not provide for the Governor to exercise discretion while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.

Subramaniam – who had on September 3 alleged that the Centre was indirectly seeking to abrogate the fulcrum of the Constitution, ie, the cabinet system of government accountable to the Legislature which has been held to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution – on Tuesday submitted that no discretionary powers can be given to the Governor under Article 200 that would allow him to become an "all-pervading authority".

“Any interpretation that confers upon the Governor an unqualified power of veto is antithetical to the existence of elected state legislatures,” Subramanium told the Bench -- which also included Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar.

On behalf of the Punjab government, Datar contended that the Governor had no discretion under Article 200 and he can’t withhold a bill and laying down of timelines ensured certainty and predictability.

"He (Governor) has only three options… His discretion is limited to choosing one of the three options…The argument that the Governor can withhold assent indefinitely cannot be correct…Withholding assent is only for the time taken to prepare a message (to send back to the legislature),” Datar submitted.

Venugopa, representing the Kerala government, submitted that the Governor can't be allowed to exercise discretion in such a manner that he can withhold even money bills. “Any interpretation that confers upon the Governor an unqualified power of veto is antithetical to the existence of elected state legislatures,” he contended.

Last week, the Bench wondered if it can prescribe blanket timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state legislatures. "Can we lay down a straightjacket formula under Article 142 (of the Constitution) for exercising the powers of the President and governors?" it asked.