Supreme Court Seeks Response From West Bengal Governor Over Withholding Assent To WB Universities (Amendment) Bill 2022
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 22) issued notice in a petition challenging the inaction on the part of the West Bengal Governor Dr C.V. Ananda Bose in giving assent to the West Bengal Universities (Amendment) Bill 2022, which was passed by the State legislature in June 2022. The Court has sought a response from the Principal Secretary to the Governor of West Bengal, the Union as well as...
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 22) issued notice in a petition challenging the inaction on the part of the West Bengal Governor Dr C.V. Ananda Bose in giving assent to the West Bengal Universities (Amendment) Bill 2022, which was passed by the State legislature in June 2022. The Court has sought a response from the Principal Secretary to the Governor of West Bengal, the Union as well as the Principal Secretary of the Department of Higher Education in this regard.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala passed the following order :
"Issue notice to 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent, liberty to serve the central agency. Returnable in 4 weeks."
The Calcutta High Court in September 2023 had called for affidavits from the Office of West Bengal Governor, Dr C.V. Ananda Bose, in a PIL challenging his alleged inaction in either assenting to or sending back to the House for reconsideration, the West Bengal Universities (Amendment) Bill 2022, which was passed by the State legislature in June 2022 to replacing Governor with the CM as the Chancellor of the State Universities.
However, on October 16, 2023, the bench stayed in its earlier directions seeking a response from the Governor and observed that the Court would first proceed on hearing the issue of maintainability of the PIL. The Petitioners have now approached the Supreme Court.
The High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanm and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya observed the following with regard to the non-disclosure of the petitioner's political affiliations while filing the petition :
2. Learned advocate for the respondents/Union of India has raised an objection as regards the locus standi of the petitioner and also the fact regarding non-disclosure of his political affiliation.
3. Therefore, for the time being, the order and direction issued in the order dated 12th September 2023 shall remain suspended and this Court will hear the petitioner on the maintainability of the writ petition at the first instance and thereafter take a decision.
Background
Before the High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanm and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya, petitioners therein argued that the Governor has been “sitting on the Bill” due to it recognising the Chief Minister as Chancellor of the State Universities, ousting the Governor from the role.
The Petitioners had submitted that even though the Bill was pending consideration since mid-2022, the Governor kept on making appointments of VCs in his capacity as Chancellor of the State Universities.
Petitioners argued that the Governor, under Article 161 of the Constitution, had no choice but to either assent to the bill, send it back to the house for reconsideration with/without comments or finally to send it to the President for directions. However, the Governor's actions in this case would tantamount to rejecting the Bill, which is not at all within the scope of his constitutional powers, Petitioners allege.
Before the High Court, the Union submitted that the present plea was in no way urgent, and that notwithstanding the “dual bar” on proceedings against the Governor, under Articles 212 and 361 of the Constitution, the present PIL was not genuine and had been politically motivated.
The union further submitted under Article 212 of the Constitution, no Court could exercise jurisdiction over the conduct of a lawmaker in their law-making role. It was argued that the Governor, being part of the legislature, could not be hauled up for his actions in his legislative capacity. It was further argued that under Article 361, the Governor would enjoy personal immunity against any and all proceedings before a Court of law, during his tenure.
The High Court bench inquired whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution could direct the Governor to either pass or send back the bill, since “the makers of the Constitution had never envisaged such a situation”.The court held that while the objection of the Union pertaining to the locus standi of the petitioners would be kept on record, in a PIL, the Court would only concern itself with the Constitutional questions raised, which in its prima facie view, the present case had raised.
However, on October 16, 2023, the bench stayed its earlier directions seeking a response from the Governor and observed that the Court would first proceed on hearing the issue of maintainability of the PIL. The Petitioners have now approached the Supreme Court.
Case Details : SAYAN MUKHERJEE vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF WEST BENGAL Diary No.- 12854 - 2024