New Delhi: The Union government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that its recent judgement setting timelines for both the President and Governors to act on Bills would not cover the dispute between Kerala’s Governor and Assembly.
The top court was dealing with a plea filed by the Kerala government against “inaction” on the part of the Governor in giving assent to the bills passed by the Assembly.
Appearing on behalf of the Kerala government, senior advocate K.K. Venugopal submitted before a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi that its case would be squarely covered by the recent SC judgment in Tamil Nadu’s Governor case.
On the other hand, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the two topmost law officers of the Centre, said that Kerala’s case is factually different and would not be covered by the latest judgment on interpretation of Article 200.
“The Tamil Nadu judgment does not cover certain issues of this case on the facts. We would like to show those differences. I will put in a note,” said Attorney General Venkataramani.
After hearing the submissions, the Justice Narasimha-led Bench said that it would examine whether the judgment in Tamil Nadu’s Governor case was applicable to Kerala’s case as well or if there were any differences, and posted the matter for hearing on May 6.
In the case of Kerala, seven bills were referred to President Droupadi Murmu by then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, post their re-adoption in a special Assembly session. The plea said that by keeping bills presented to him pending for such long periods, the Governor is directly violating the provision of the Constitution, namely, that the bill should be dealt with “as soon as possible”.
The writ petition said that the words “as soon as possible” occurring in Article 200 of the Constitution necessarily mean that not only should pending bills be disposed of within a reasonable time, but that these Bills have to be dealt with urgently and expeditiously without any avoidable delay.
Earlier this month, the top court, using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, resolved a standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi over the delay in granting assent to Bills passed by the Assembly. It ruled that Governor Ravi’s refusal to approve 10 bills in Tamil Nadu was both “illegal and arbitrary” and set a three-month deadline for Presidential and gubernatorial approval of bills passed by the legislature for a second time.
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received,” said a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
If there is no decision within this time frame, states are entitled to file writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus against the President, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench clarified.
The apex court used the powers for the purpose of declaring the 10 withheld Bills as deemed to have been assented to on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the state legislature. The top court held that once a Bill is returned, re-passed by the legislature, and presented again to the Governor, it is not open for the Governor to reserve it for the President’s consideration. Additionally, the President is now under an obligation to provide reasons for their decision, which must be communicated to the state government.
Further, it suggested that the President should consult the Supreme Court on Bills involving Constitutional issues.
The judgment, apparently, brought Presidential actions under judicial review by favouring a three-month deadline for granting assent to Bills. The issue took a new twist after Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar used strong words against the judiciary, comparing Article 142 to a ‘nuclear missile’ available to the judiciary against democratic forces.
(IANS)
