‘Rendered the Actions of the State Legislature Otiose …’, WB to SC on Governor’s No Action on Eight Bills since 2022

West Bengal government's advocate, in a plea before a bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, contended that eight bills passed since 2022, have been kept in a limbo. The state government said that the conduct of the governor threatens to subvert the basic foundation of the Constitution and proceeds to infringe upon the rights of the people of the state.

New Delhi :The West Bengal government has moved the Supreme Court against the state’s governor for not acting on eight bills, since 2022, claiming it is against the constitutional mandate and rendered the actions of the state legislature otiose. The state government stressed that the conduct of the governor, not only threatens to defeat and subvert the very fundamentals and basic foundation of the Constitution, but further proceeds to infringe upon the rights of the people of the state.

Advocate Astha Sharma mentioned the state’s petition today before a bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. Sharma urged the court to grant urgent hearing in the matter. The bench agreed to consider the request.

The state government, in its plea, contended that eight bills passed since 2022, have been kept in a limbo without any action. The state emphasized that it has rendered the actions of the state legislature otiose.

The state contended that several crucial bills have been lying dormant with the governor of the State since 2022 when Jagdeep Dhankhar was in office and no step has been taken by his successor and the incumbent Dr C V Ananda Bose. In its defence, the state also cited the apex court’s decision in similar circumstances for the states of Telangana and Punjab.

The Mamata Banerjee government urged the apex court to declare the inaction, omission and delay as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable besides malafide exercise of power, and sought a direction to the governor, through his secretary, to dispose of those bills within a specified time frame.

The state government urged the apex court to lay down guidelines stipulating the outer time limit for the governor to consider files, policies, and also government orders sent for signature in discharge of his constitutional functions.

The plea said: "The conduct of the Governor, not only threatens to defeat and subvert the very fundamentals and basic foundation of our Constitution, including the rule of law and democratic good governance, but further proceeds to infringe upon the rights of the people of the State”.

The state government said the Article 200, Constitution casts a solemn duty on the governor to assent to the bill; or withholds the assent; or reserves the bill for the consideration of the President.

The state government said no part of the powers and duties of the office of the governor provides for him to refuse to deal with bills pending, in this case, for almost two years, while at the same time, granting assent to other bills.