Chandigarh, November 7
A constitutional controversy has erupted in Haryana following the reported move of the Governor, Dr A.R. Kidwai, to seek the opinion of the Attorney-General of India, Mr Milon Banerjee, on the three Bills passed by the Assembly in its last session extending the time period during which the elections to panchayats and municipal bodies can be held.
Under the existing law, these elections can be held two months prior to the expiry of the term of these bodies. The new Bills extend this period to four months.
The Opposition alleges that the ruling party wants to divide the community, particularly in the rural areas, by holding the panchayat elections before the next Assembly elections in the state, which are due in February.
The Governor had earlier sought the opinion of the Advocate-General, Mr Ashok Aggarwal, on the Bills. It seems, Dr Kidwai, now wants to seek the opinion of the Attorney-General also.
Senior officers of the state government, however, term the Governor’s reported move as a “Constitutional impropriety”. They say, on the condition of anonymity, that under Article 76 of the Constitution, the Attorney-General is to advise the President and the Central Government, while under Article 165, the Advocate-General is to perform this function for a state government.
They also point out that under Article 200, a Governor is bound to either give his assent to a Bill, or send it back for the reconsideration of the Legislature, or has the right to reserve it for the consideration of the President. However, they admit that no time frame has been laid down in the
Constitution for the Governor to do so. The absence of the time frame has given an unwritten power of “pocket veto” to the Governor, who can “just sit over a
Bill (or pocket it) without deciding its fate either way”.
These officers say by seeking the opinion of the Attorney-General, Dr Kidwai, is trying to give an impression as if he is not exercising “pocket veto” to defeat the purpose of the Bills. But the Governor would be able to delay his decision on these Bills till such time when the Election Commission of India would announce the Assembly elections. Once the commission makes the announcement, the State Election Commission, which conducts the panchayat and municipal body elections,
would not be able to do so till the completion of the Assembly poll process.
These officers draw a parallel between, Dr Kidwai’s, action and the Punjab Assembly’s action in negating the all inter-state water agreements. They claim both are not according to constitutional propriety.
On the other hand, informed sources say it is not for the first time that the Haryana Governor has sought the opinion of the Attorney-General. In the past on a number of occasion the Attorney-General’s opinion was sought by the Haryana Raj Bhavan, for which the latter paid fee to the former out of its own funds.
Moreover, the sources say the practice is quite common in the other states also. Even the state governments, including that of Haryana, had been engaging the Attorney-General as well as the Solicitor-General to defend its cases in various courts.
They say there is nothing in Article 76, which prohibits an Attorney-General from advising a State Governor. The Attorney-General is even engaged by private persons provided their case is not against the Central Government. So there is nothing wrong if, Dr Kidwai, seek his opinion on a Bill, which has become controversial.
The sources say instead of getting panicky over the reported move of the Governor, the state government should appreciate the fairness and open-mindedness of, Dr Kidwai, in seeking the Attorney-General’s advice.
Because of his eminent status in the legal fraternity of the country, an Attorney-General would give his advice as he views a given situation.
If the Attorney-General finds no legal infirmity in the Bills, the Governor would not hesitate in giving his assent. The Attorney-General’s advice should also satisfy the Opposition, which is accusing the ruling party of having a vested interest in the Bills.
