The petitioner-lawyer claimed in his plea that he has the locus standi to bring to the forefront, this issue that affects the fundamental rights of the people.
“The petitioner represents the people who elected the state’s political executive, which runs the government in the state. In a parliamentary democratic system of governance, the representatives of the people reflect the people’s political wills and aspirations in the legislative bodies. The members of the legislative assembly reflect the mandates of the people. A proper and efficient legislative assembly reflects the mandates of the people. The aforesaid function is part of the fundamental rights of the people, who come under the broad sweep of Article 21, of the Constitution. The petitioner seeks to enforce the said fundamental rights of the people,” the plea said.
The petitioner contended that the bills passed by the cabinet are being indefinitely stonewalled as even after the State cabinet advised the Governor to assent to the bills, the Governor has not yet given assent or adopted any other course available to him, under Article 200 of the Constitution of India.
The plea said that the Governor should not act contrary to the advice of the council of ministers just because he does not like the policy embodied in the bill and hence, the actions of the Governor are malafide, arbitrary, and antithetical to democratic values.
The petitioner further argued that according to the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, the Sarkaria commission, and the MM Punchi commission, a time limit has to be fixed with regard to the consideration of the bill as it is the sine qua non for the smooth functioning of the democratic system.
Source: Barandbench
