Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel on Monday alleged that Governor Anusuiya Uikey was finding constant excuses to hold on to quota bills even as face-off on the issue escalated.
The bills, providing for a total 76 per cent caste-based reservation in government jobs and admission to educational institutes, are yet to be signed by the governor even 24 days after their passage by the state Assembly.
The state Congress is planning to hold a mega rally on January 3 to protest the alleged interference of BJP and RSS, which it says has led to the current situation on the bills. This will be the first time that the ruling party will be holding a rally to get a pending issue resolved in the state.
Chief Minister Baghel seemed belligerent on Monday when he announced the decision of the rally by Congress following a meeting of the state unit of the party in the presence of the new state in-charge Kumari Selja.
Baghel said that the bills were passed unanimously by the state Assembly, yet it seemed that the legal advisor of the governor had become more powerful than the Assembly. His remarks came in context of Governor Uikey’s statement on Sunday that she will get the replies sent out by the government (to 10 questions asked by her office regarding the bills) checked (legally) before taking a further decision.
Baghel said this was a classic example of the fact that the BJP-ruled Centre was trying to weaken constitutional structure and institutions. “It is trying to undermine the authority of the state Assembly. Our officers were against the idea of answering the queries sent out by the governor's office as such constitutional provision does not exist. However, for the welfare of the people of the state, and taking into account the insistence of the governor, I decided to send across the reply to satisfy her ego. But now there is talk of getting the replies checked. Is the legal advisor of the governor a higher authority than the Assembly? Only the High Court and the Supreme Court have the right to look into the legality of the legislation. It is unfortunate if this work is taken up by the legal advisors,” the CM said.
The Congress has accused the BJP of making attempts to stop approval of the bills and has demanded quick action on the part of the governor to resolve the lingering issue. The Congress has also been saying that the governor should have returned the bills for reconsideration by the Assembly, if she had some objections to it. But instead of doing that, she sent across a string of queries. They have now decided to hold a rally to highlight the delay in signing of the bills.
At the end of a special session on December 2, the Assembly had passed two bills—Chhattisgarh Public Service (ST/SC/OBC Reservation) Amendment Bill 2022 and the Chhattisgarh Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Bill 2022.
These bills provide for 32 per cent quota for scheduled tribes (STs) and 27 per cent quota for other backward classes (OBCs), apart from 13 per cent reservation for Scheduled Caste (ST) communities and 4 per cent for economically weaker sections (EWS).
Talking on the issue with THE WEEK, Governor Ansuiya Uikey said the High Court had struck down the law providing for 58 per cent reservation on the basis that it flouted the 50 per cent bar on overall quota, but now that the state government has proposed to increase it to 76 per cent, she wants to have complete clarity on the basis used for such provisions, so that future legal impediments could be avoided. Therefore she had decided to send a 10-point query to the government on the matter.
Sources at the Governor's House told THE WEEK that after receiving replies from the government, the governor wanted to get checked whether they were satisfactory.
What does the Constitution say?
Article 200 of the Constitution of India says that when a bill passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State is presented to the governor; the governor shall either give assent to the bill, or withhold the assent or reserve for the consideration of the President.
But this is “provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions”. Further, when “a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom.”
The article further provides that the “Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill.”
However, in this case, the governor has not returned the bill to the Assembly, but has rather sought clarification from the government—an action that the Congress and its government are objecting to.
