SAYAN MUKHERJEE VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF WEST BENGAL DIARY NO.- 12854 – 2024

SAYAN MUKHERJEE VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF WEST BENGAL DIARY NO.- 12854 – 2024

FACTS- In this case, 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 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.

ISSUE-Whether Supreme Court Seeks can responseregarding Withholding Assent to WB Universities (Amendment) Bill 2022?

OBSERVATION-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.

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 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.