The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the Centre and the secretaries to the governors of West Bengal and Kerala on separate pleas filed the two state governments against denial of assent to bills, reported PTI.

Article 200 of the Constitution gives governors the power to either grant assent to a bill, reject it or reserve it for the president’s consideration in certain cases.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing pleas from the Kerala and West Bengal governments that are run by the Opposition parties. The court has given three weeks to the Centre and the governors of the two states to file their reply, reported Bar and Bench.

At Friday’s hearing, the Left Democratic Front government of Kerala urged the court to lay down guidelines on when the governors can return or refer bills to the president.

The Kerala government has moved the top court against Governor Arif Mohammed Khan for withholding assent to at least eight bills. It also moved the court against President Droupadi Murmu for withholding assent to four of the seven bills referred to her by Khan.

“There is a confusion in the minds of various Governors in the country as to what their powers are in regard to assenting to bills,” Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, told the court, reported Live Law. “In the present case, out of eight bills, two of them had been kept pending for 23 months. One for 15 months. Another for 13 months. And others for 10 months…The Constitution itself is being rendered otiose.”

The Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal has also moved the Supreme Court against its Governor CV Ananda Bose for withholding assent to eight bills without any explanation.

After the matter reached the court, the governor's office said that some of the bills have been reserved for the president's consideration, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for West Bengal, informed the bench on Friday, reported Live Law. However, there was no official confirmation of this.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for West Bengal, referred to the instance of the Tamil Nadu governor clearing some bills only after the southern state sought the judiciary’s intervention, reported Live Law.

“This is now becoming a practice, in Tamil Nadu matter I filed a petition, and the moment the matter is listed, two bills are cleared, the next date comes again something is sent to the president, I don’t understand why the Supreme Court has to list the matter before the Hon'ble Governor Acts,” Singhvi said.

Also read: